Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38277081›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024

Leveraging artificial intelligence in neurosurgery-unveiling ChatGPT for neurosurgical discharge summaries and operative reports.

Daniel Dubinski, Sae-Yeon Won, Svorad Trnovec, Bedjan Behmanesh, Peter Baumgarten, Nazife Dinc, Juergen Konczalla, Alvin Chan, Joshua D Bernstock, Thomas M Freiman and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Multi-criteria evaluation of clinical decision-making performance in spinal neurosurgery and physical therapy scenarios: A comparative analysis of artificial intelligence models.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniel DubinskiDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medicine Rostock, Rostock, Germany. danieldubinski@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5568-8429
Sae-Yeon WonDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medicine Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Svorad TrnovecDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medicine Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Bedjan BehmaneshDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medicine Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Peter BaumgartenDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.
Nazife DincDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.
Juergen KonczallaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Goethe-University Hospital, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Alvin ChanDavid H. Koch Institute for Integrated Cancer Research, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Joshua D BernstockDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Thomas M FreimanDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medicine Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Florian GesslerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medicine Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
University of Rostock · DEJena University Hospital · DEAllen Institute · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USGoethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeChat generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) is a novel large pre-trained natural language processing software that can enable scientific writing amongst a litany of other features. Given this, there is a growing interest in exploring the use of ChatGPT models as a modality to facilitate/assist in the provision of clinical care.

methodsWe investigated the time taken for the composition of neurosurgical discharge summaries and operative reports at a major University hospital. In so doing, we compared currently employed speech recognition software (i.e., SpeaKING) vs novel ChatGPT for three distinct neurosurgical diseases: chronic subdural hematoma, spinal decompression, and craniotomy. Furthermore, factual correctness was analyzed for the abovementioned diseases.

resultsThe composition of neurosurgical discharge summaries and operative reports with the assistance of ChatGPT leads to a statistically significant time reduction across all three diseases/report types: p < 0.001 for chronic subdural hematoma, p < 0.001 for decompression of spinal stenosis, and p < 0.001 for craniotomy and tumor resection. However, despite a high degree of factual correctness, the preparation of a surgical report for craniotomy proved to be significantly lower (p = 0.002).

conclusionChatGPT assisted in the writing of discharge summaries and operative reports as evidenced by an impressive reduction in time spent as compared to standard speech recognition software. While promising, the optimal use cases and ethics of AI-generated medical writing remain to be fully elucidated and must be further explored in future studies.

Indexed as

Hematoma, Subdural, ChronicNeurosurgeryArtificial IntelligenceHumansNeurosurgical ProceduresPatient DischargeAI-generated outputArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMedical documentation

Identifiers

PMID38277081
PMCPMC10817836
OpenAlexW4391260037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 OpenQuestion graph.