Observational studyMuscle & nerve2026
A Hybrid Rule-Based and Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence System for Electrodiagnostic Reporting: Two-Center Retrospective Evaluation.
Observational study in Muscle & nerve, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsElectrodiagnostic (EDX) studies comprise nerve conduction studies (NCS) and needle electromyography (EMG). However, EDX reporting is heterogeneous across laboratories and often requires time-consuming documentation. We aimed to evaluate a hybrid rule-based and constrained large language model (LLM) system that drafts EDX reports from structured EDX measurements.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed EDX reports from two institutions. The system generated a structured Summary (standardized abnormal findings derived from EDX measurements using laboratory-specific cutoffs), and then used a label-constrained LLM to draft a diagnostic Interpretation (a clinician-facing diagnostic conclusion) by selecting from a predefined diagnostic-label inventory. We evaluated agreement with clinician diagnostic interpretation using a Coverage-Localization Index (CLI), which summarizes whether the same diagnostic labels were selected (coverage) and whether the site/level localization matched (localization).
resultsAmong 500 screened examinations, 332 reports were included (241 primary-care; 91 tertiary-care). Overall CLI agreement between system and clinician diagnostic interpretation was high (mean total 96.7%, 95% CI 95.1-98.1), with lower agreement in more complex examinations. DISCUSSION: The rule-based extractor captured all rule-defined abnormal findings, and the constrained LLM drafted diagnostic interpretations that showed high agreement with clinicians, generating standardized draft reports. Only abnormal, in-scope EDX reports were included, which limits direct inference about performance in an unselected clinical stream. Future work should validate the approach on consecutive routine EDX reports, including normal and diagnostically ambiguous studies, and quantify workflow impact such as editing time and clinician acceptability.
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.