ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2024
Assessing the potential role of ChatGPT in spine surgery research.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models in spine care and research.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 · 2026Review
- Gemini 1.5 Flash provides the most reliable content while ChatGPT-4o offers the highest readability for patient education on meniscal tears.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Cautionary lessons from real-world testing of GPT-4.1 AI for pediatric foreign body aspiration.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Applications and potential of ChatGPT in dentistry: Scoping review of research perspectives.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Review
- Can LLMs simplify operative notes? A comparative analysis in otorhinolaryngology.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- ChatGPT's Performance in Spinal Metastasis Cases-Can We Discuss Our Complex Cases with ChatGPT?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Assessing the potential role of ChatGPT in spine surgery research.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Since its release in November 2022, Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 3.5 (ChatGPT), a complex machine learning model, has garnered more than 100 million users worldwide. The aim of this study is to determine how well ChatGPT can generate novel systematic review ideas on topics within spine surgery. Methods: ChatGPT was instructed to give ten novel systematic review ideas for five popular topics in spine surgery literature: microdiscectomy, laminectomy, spinal fusion, kyphoplasty and disc replacement. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane. The number of nonsystematic review articles and number of systematic review papers that had been published on each ChatGPT-generated idea were recorded. Results: Overall, ChatGPT had a 68% accuracy rate in creating novel systematic review ideas. More specifically, the accuracy rates were 80%, 80%, 40%, 70% and 70% for microdiscectomy, laminectomy, spinal fusion, kyphoplasty and disc replacement, respectively. However, there was a 32% rate of ChatGPT generating ideas for which there were 0 nonsystematic review articles published. There was a 71.4%, 50%, 22.2%, 50%, 62.5% and 51.2% success rate of generating novel systematic review ideas, for which there were also nonsystematic reviews published, for microdiscectomy, laminectomy, spinal fusion, kyphoplasty, disc replacement and overall, respectively. Conclusions: ChatGPT generated novel systematic review ideas at an overall rate of 68%. ChatGPT can help identify knowledge gaps in spine research that warrant further investigation, when used under supervision of an experienced spine specialist. This technology can be erroneous and lacks intrinsic logic; so, it should never be used in isolation. Level of Evidence: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.