Abstract
Cerebrovascular diseases are the second most common cause of death worldwide and one of the major causes of disability burden. Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to revolutionize healthcare delivery, particularly in critical decision-making scenarios such as ischemic stroke management. This study evaluates the effectiveness of GPT-4 in providing clinical decision support for emergency room neurologists by comparing its recommendations with expert opinions and real-world treatment outcomes. A cohort of 100 consecutive patients with acute stroke symptoms was retrospectively reviewed. The data used for decision making included patients’ history, clinical evaluation, imaging studies results, and other relevant details. Each case was independently presented to GPT-4, which provided a scaled recommendation (1-7) regarding the appropriateness of treatment, the use of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), and the need for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Additionally, GPT-4 estimated the 90-day mortality probability for each patient and elucidated its reasoning for each recommendation. The recommendations were then compared with those of a stroke specialist and actual treatment decision. The agreement of GPT-4’s recommendations with the expert opinion yielded an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.85 [95% CI: 0.77-0.93], and with real-world treatment decisions, an AUC of 0.80 [0.69-0.91]. In terms of mortality prediction, out of 13 patients who died within 90 days, GPT-4 accurately identified 10 within its top 25 high-risk predictions (AUC = 0.89 [95% CI: 0.8077-0.9739]; HR: 6.98 [95% CI: 2.88-16.9]), surpassing supervised machine-learning models. This study demonstrates the potential of GPT-4 as a viable clinical decision support tool in the management of ischemic stroke. Its ability to provide explainable recommendations without requiring structured data input aligns well with the routine workflows of treating physicians. Future studies should focus on prospective validations and exploring the integration of such AI tools into clinical practice.
Competing Interest Statement
There are no competing interests. DA reports consulting fees from Carelon Digital Platforms.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of Rambam Health Care Campus gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data that was used in this study is available as a supplementary table.
