ArticleBMJ neurology open2026
Large language models to infer depression in patients with neurological conditions.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and validate a large language model (LLM) prompt capable of ascertaining a patient's depression from their multiple sclerosis (MS) neurologist's note and to explore its potential for earlier detection of depression in MS care. Materials and methods: This single-center retrospective study analysed prospectively collected electronic health record notes. In phase I, an institutionally secure ChatGPT-4 prompt was iteratively refined to infer the presence of depression using the neurologist's note and compared with manual annotation of the neurologist's impression (depression: present, absent, no mention) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs): Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-9. In phase II, longitudinal analysis compared timing of depression detection by the prompt and the neurologist across 5 years of notes for 250 patients. Results: In phase I (n=278 adults with MS), the LLM prompt detected depression in 60.4% of notes (168/278). When compared with neurologist impression in the clinical notes, the prompt achieved 97.3% sensitivity and 84.4% accuracy. Specificity was more modest (68.3%): when neurologists did not mention depression, the prompt inferred depression based on symptoms, history and medications. When PRO and neurologist impression disagreed, the prompt aligned with PROs 61.9% of the time. In phase II, the LLM inferred depression earlier than the neurologist in 18.8% of patients, at an average of 2.45 (SD 1.54) years earlier. Conclusion: The prompt was highly sensitive to neurologist documentation of depression in clinical notes; it inferred both present/treated depression from other note components. Potential applications include quality improvement initiatives aiming to improve depression care on a cohort level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.