Current Landscape and Future Directions Regarding Generative Large Language Models in Stroke Care: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke has a major impact on global health, causing long-term disability and straining health care resources. Generative large language models (gLLMs) have emerged as promising tools to help address these challenges, but their applications and reported performance in stroke care require comprehensive mapping and synthesis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to consolidate a fragmented evidence base and examine the current landscape, shortcomings, and future directions in the design, reporting, and evaluation of gLLM-based interventions in stroke care. METHODS: In this scoping review, which adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines and the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework, we searched 6 major scientific databases in December 2024 for gLLM-based interventions across the stroke care pathway, mapping their key characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies met the predefined eligibility criteria and were included for analysis. Retrospective designs predominated (n=16, 64%). Key applications of gLLMs included clinical decision-making support (n=10, 40%), administrative assistance (n=9, 36%), direct patient interaction (n=5, 20%), and automated literature review (n=1, 4%). Implementations mainly used generative pretrained transformer models accessed through task-prompted chat interfaces. In total, 5 key challenges were identified from the included studies during the implementation of gLLM-based interventions: ensuring factual alignment, maintaining system robustness, enhancing interpretability, optimizing efficiency, and facilitating clinical adoption. CONCLUSIONS: The application of gLLMs in stroke care, while promising, remains relatively new, with most interventions reflecting early-stage or relatively simple implementations. Against this backdrop, critical gaps in research and clinical translation persist. To support the development of clinically impactful and trustworthy applications, we propose an actionable framework that prioritizes real-world evidence, mandates transparent technical reporting, broadens evaluation beyond output accuracy, strengthens validation of advanced task adaptation strategies, and investigates mechanisms for safe and effective human-gLLM interaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.088 | 0.289 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".