Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42610794›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2026

Evaluating the First CE-Marked LLM-Based Chatbot for Evidence-Based Neurology.

Patricia Kirschner, Paula Z Epping, Sven G Meuth, Marc Pawlitzki, Lars Masanneck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Patricia KirschnerDepartment of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0835-0120
Paula Z EppingDepartment of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6219-988X
Sven G MeuthDepartment of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2571-3501
Marc PawlitzkiDepartment of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Lars MasanneckDepartment of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2496-1415

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are entering clinical workflows for information retrieval and decision support, but concerns persist about factual accuracy and traceability to evidence. Prof. Valmed is the first CE-marked LLM-based tool for medical information retrieval in Europe, raising the question whether certification aligns with reliable performance in neurology. This study aims to assess the answer accuracy of Prof. Valmed on a neurology benchmark and compare its performance with previously evaluated commercial LLM tools.

methodsProf. Valmed (V2.0.1_2.0.0) was tested on a 130-item benchmark derived from American Academy of Neurology guidelines (65 case-based, 65 knowledge-based). Each question was prompted four times. Two raters scored responses as correct, inaccurate, wrong, or refused; disagreements were adjudicated. Modal ratings per question were used for analysis. Comparative performance against 16 LLMs or configurations previously assessed using the same protocol was evaluated.

resultsProf. Valmed achieved 76.2% correct answers, 14.6% inaccurate, 6.9% wrong, and 2.3% refused. In pairwise comparisons, Prof. Valmed performed significantly better than 8 models, comparable to several retrieval- or whitelist-enabled tools, and significantly worse than one reasoning model with whitelisting of neurology sources. Overall, its performance was within the range of standard commercial tools.

conclusionThe CE-marked product demonstrated accuracy comparable to contemporary LLMs but did not outperform reasoning-enabled systems. CE marking ensures regulatory conformity rather than inherent performance advantage, and the certification process may limit the integration of rapidly evolving model architectures into approved systems. Future evaluations should examine reasoning quality, source use, and update feasibility across medical domains.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineInformation Storage and RetrievalLarge Language ModelsNeurologyHumansAIdigital healthevidence‐based medicinelarge language modelsneurology

Identifiers

PMID42610794
PMCPMC13484281

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.