Physician Decision-Making in Acute Ischemic Stroke with and without a Guideline-Encoded Clinical Decision Support System

Background: Applying extensive, frequently revised guidelines at the point of care is difficult. We evaluated whether acute ischemic stroke decisions made with LUCID, a clinical decision support system encoding the 2026 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guideline, were more often guideline-concordant than decisions made without it. Methods: In this pilot vignette study, clinicians completed 8 stroke vignettes (24 questions) alone (Arm A) or with access to LUCID (Arm B). Questions bundling recommendations of different classes were split into nodes (29 decision points). The primary outcome, full guideline concordance, was compared between decision points made with and without LUCID using cluster-bootstrap risk differences (RDs). Decision confidence and workload (NASA Task Load Index; missing scores multiply imputed) were compared between arms. Results: Fifteen clinicians (Arm A, 5; Arm B, 10) contributed 351 decision points: 151 with LUCID and 200 without. Full concordance was 99.3% (150/151) with LUCID versus 71.0% (142/200) without (RD, 28.3 [95% CI, 21.7 to 34.9] percentage points; P<0.001), and at least partial concordance was 100% versus 93.5% (RD, 6.5 [2.3 to 10.2]; P=0.001). Concordance with versus without LUCID was 100% versus 67.9% for Class 1, 100% versus 79.3% for Class 3: Harm, and 100% versus 74.3% for Class 3: No Benefit recommendations. Commission errors occurred at 0 of 66 versus 10 of 64 Class 3 decision points (P<0.001). Decision confidence was numerically higher in Arm B than in Arm A (median, 5 versus 4; P=0.24). Workload was lower in Arm B for mental demand (P=0.045), with borderline reductions in temporal demand (P=0.090) and composite workload (P=0.084). Conclusions: In this pilot, decisions made with a guideline-encoded decision support system were almost uniformly guideline-concordant, including for recommendations against harmful interventions, and workload tended to be lower with system access. Confirmation in a larger study with blinded outcome assessment is warranted.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
medRxiv
Published
2026-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.26.26366524
Primary Topic
Electronic Health Records Systems
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Physician Decision-Making in Acute Ischemic Stroke with and without a Guideline-Encoded Clinical Decision Support System

Mohamed Fahmy Doheim, Raul G. Nogueira
2 links
medRxiv
Electronic Health Records Systems
preprint

Physician Decision-Making in Acute Ischemic Stroke with and without a Guideline-Encoded Clinical Decision Support System

Mohamed Fahmy Doheim, Raul G. Nogueira
preprint en

Abstract

Background: Applying extensive, frequently revised guidelines at the point of care is difficult. We evaluated whether acute ischemic stroke decisions made with LUCID, a clinical decision support system encoding the 2026 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guideline, were more often guideline-concordant than decisions made without it. Methods: In this pilot vignette study, clinicians completed 8 stroke vignettes (24 questions) alone (Arm A) or with access to LUCID (Arm B). Questions bundling recommendations of different classes were split into nodes (29 decision points). The primary outcome, full guideline concordance, was compared between decision points made with and without LUCID using cluster-bootstrap risk differences (RDs). Decision confidence and workload (NASA Task Load Index; missing scores multiply imputed) were compared between arms. Results: Fifteen clinicians (Arm A, 5; Arm B, 10) contributed 351 decision points: 151 with LUCID and 200 without. Full concordance was 99.3% (150/151) with LUCID versus 71.0% (142/200) without (RD, 28.3 [95% CI, 21.7 to 34.9] percentage points; P<0.001), and at least partial concordance was 100% versus 93.5% (RD, 6.5 [2.3 to 10.2]; P=0.001). Concordance with versus without LUCID was 100% versus 67.9% for Class 1, 100% versus 79.3% for Class 3: Harm, and 100% versus 74.3% for Class 3: No Benefit recommendations. Commission errors occurred at 0 of 66 versus 10 of 64 Class 3 decision points (P<0.001). Decision confidence was numerically higher in Arm B than in Arm A (median, 5 versus 4; P=0.24). Workload was lower in Arm B for mental demand (P=0.045), with borderline reductions in temporal demand (P=0.090) and composite workload (P=0.084). Conclusions: In this pilot, decisions made with a guideline-encoded decision support system were almost uniformly guideline-concordant, including for recommendations against harmful interventions, and workload tended to be lower with system access. Confirmation in a larger study with blinded outcome assessment is warranted.

medRxiv
University of Pittsburgh (US), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US), Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie (FR)
Good health and well-being
Electronic Health Records Systems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon