ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2026
Evaluating the First CE-Marked LLM-Based Chatbot for Evidence-Based Neurology.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.