ReviewActa epileptologica2026
Modern generative large language models in epilepsy care: a scoping review of current applications, challenges, and future directions.
Review in Acta epileptologica, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Modern generative large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being evaluated in epilepsy-related clinical tasks, but the evidence remains fragmented and their safe clinical role is uncertain. We conducted a scoping review following the PRISMA-ScR framework, searching PubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science Core Collection from inception to May 2026, to map current applications of modern generative LLMs in epilepsy-related clinical contexts and identify their reported benefits, limitations, and research gaps. Eligible studies evaluated generative LLMs or generative foundation models as the primary analytical or assistive engine in clinical or clinically oriented epilepsy tasks; non-generative natural language processing, conventional machine-learning, and signal-modeling studies served as contextual comparators only. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data for descriptive mapping and narrative synthesis. Twenty-four studies were included. Evidence was relatively more developed for text-centered tasks, including information extraction from electronic health records, question answering, and documentation support, while applications in differential diagnosis, presurgical evaluation, prognostic assessment, and patient communication remained early-stage. Across studies, the evidence base was heterogeneous, with frequent reliance on retrospective or simulated designs, single-center data, and limited external validation, alongside persistent concerns about hallucination, bias, model opacity, and workflow integration. Current evidence suggests a limited role for cautious, clinician-supervised use of generative LLMs in selected text-heavy epilepsy tasks, particularly extraction, summarization, documentation support, and patient education, but falls short of justifying independent or routine clinical deployment. Future studies should use narrower task definitions, epilepsy-specific datasets, transparent reporting of model versions and prompt design, external validation, and explicit documentation of clinician verification workflows.
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.