Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39364514›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Evaluating the Adherence of Large Language Models to Surgical Guidelines: A Comparative Analysis of Chatbot Recommendations and North American Spine Society (NASS) Coverage Criteria.

Advith Sarikonda, Emily Isch, Mitchell Self, Abhijeet Sambangi, Angeleah Carreras, Ahilan Sivaganesan, Jim Harrop, Jack Jallo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Large language models in the vertical integration of spine surgery workflow: a scoping review.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
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Advith SarikondaDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Emily IschDepartment of General Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, USA.
Mitchell SelfDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, USA.
Abhijeet SambangiDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Angeleah CarrerasDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Ahilan SivaganesanDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, USA.
Jim HarropDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, USA.
Jack JalloDepartment of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background There has been a significant increase in cervical fusion procedures, both anterior and posterior, across the United States. Despite this upward trend, limited research exists on adherence to evidence-based medicine (EBM) guidelines for cervical fusion, highlighting a gap between recommended practices and surgeon preferences. Additionally, patients are increasingly utilizing large language models (LLMs) to aid in decision-making. Methodology This observational study evaluated the capacity of four LLMs, namely, Bard, BingAI, ChatGPT-3.5, and ChatGPT-4, to adhere to EBM guidelines, specifically the 2023 North American Spine Society (NASS) cervical fusion guidelines. Ten clinical vignettes were created based on NASS recommendations to determine when fusion was indicated. This novel approach assessed LLM performance in a clinical decision-making context without requiring institutional review board approval, as no human subjects were involved. Results No LLM achieved complete concordance with NASS guidelines, though ChatGPT-4 and Bing Chat exhibited the highest adherence at 60%. Discrepancies were notably observed in scenarios involving head-drop syndrome and pseudoarthrosis, where all LLMs failed to align with NASS recommendations. Additionally, only 25% of LLMs agreed with NASS guidelines for fusion in cases of cervical radiculopathy and as an adjunct to facet cyst resection. Conclusions The study underscores the need for improved LLM training on clinical guidelines and emphasizes the importance of considering the nuances of individual patient cases. While LLMs hold promise for enhancing guideline adherence in cervical fusion decision-making, their current performance indicates a need for further refinement and integration with clinical expertise to ensure optimal patient care. This study contributes to understanding the role of AI in healthcare, advocating for a balanced approach that leverages technological advancements while acknowledging the complexities of surgical decision-making.

Indexed as

cervical fusionchatgptguidelineslarge language modelsspinespine surgery

Identifiers

PMID39364514
PMCPMC11448007

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.