ReviewStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Systematic Review of Large Language Models and Natural Language Processing in Stroke Care: Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.
Review in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stroke, a leading cause of mortality, manifests as ischemic (87%) or hemorrhagic (13%), demanding rapid intervention to mitigate irreversible damage. Despite advances in artificial intelligence, systematic reviews addressing the integration of large language models and natural language processing into clinical stroke care remain limited. Such a review is critical given large language models' potential to overcome traditional natural language processing limitations, thereby enhancing risk prediction and decision support. We proposed a systematic review aimed to comprehensively analyze applications in stroke care. After searching 6 databases, 2991 records were screened, yielding 65 eligible studies. Results were structured quantitatively (impact factor trends, publication distribution) and qualitatively across 4 dimensions: Study Purposes (eg, risk modeling, decision support), Data Sets/Key Findings, Limitations, and Future Directions. Large language models demonstrated strong capabilities in automated data extraction from clinical notes (accuracies of 93.5%-95.1%) and report summarization. However, majority of studies (94%) lacked external validation. Most were limited by single-center, retrospective designs (62%) and used private data sets (85%), raising concerns about generalizability. Common failure modes included model hallucinations, performance degradation on external data, and infrastructural barriers to clinical integration. Future efforts must prioritize multicenter, prospective validation (82% of studies) to ensure model robustness and generalizability across diverse populations. Pathways for clinical translation include developing interpretability techniques to build clinician trust. Technical refinements for hallucination mitigation (98% of studies) and real-time integration of multimodal data are necessary to enhance predictive power. Addressing data heterogeneity and ethical concerns remains as gaps. This review highlights the potential of large language models in stroke care, encompassing tasks from risk prediction to workflow automation. Realizing this potential requires a shift from proof-of-concept studies to rigorously validated, clinically integrated systems. The field demands scalable, equitable, and transparent artificial intelligence solutions that are codeveloped with clinicians. These are needed to overcome existing methodological and translational barriers.
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.