Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39579215›Full record

SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2024

Large language models in neurosurgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Advait Patil, Paul Serrato, Nathan Chisvo, Omar Arnaout, Pokmeng Alfred See, Kevin T Huang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Patient and physician perspectives on large language model generated responses about brain aneurysm.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Spine patient history-taking: a two phase study of a prompt-engineered large language model assistant.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
    Article
  8. A large comprehensive comparison of large language models on ophthalmology board exams.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Advait PatilHarvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. advaitpatil@hms.harvard.edu.
Paul SerratoYale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
Nathan ChisvoComputational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Omar ArnaoutHarvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Pokmeng Alfred SeeHarvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Kevin T HuangHarvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge Language Models (LLMs) have garnered increasing attention in neurosurgery and possess significant potential to improve the field. However, the breadth and performance of LLMs across diverse neurosurgical tasks have not been systematically examined, and LLMs come with their own challenges and unique terminology. We seek to identify key models, establish reporting guidelines for replicability, and highlight progress in key application areas of LLM use in the neurosurgical literature.

methodsWe searched PubMed and Google Scholar using terms related to LLMs and neurosurgery ("large language model" OR "LLM" OR "ChatGPT" OR "GPT-3" OR "GPT3" OR "GPT-3.5" OR "GPT3.5" OR "GPT-4" OR "GPT4" OR "LLAMA" OR "MISTRAL" OR "BARD") AND "neurosurgery". The final set of articles was reviewed for publication year, application area, specific LLM(s) used, control/comparison groups used to evaluate LLM performance, whether the article reported specific LLM prompts, prompting strategy types used, whether the LLM query could be reproduced in its entirety (including both the prompt used and any adjoining data), measures of hallucination, and reported performance measures.

resultsFifty-one articles met inclusion criteria, and were categorized into six application areas, with the most common being Generation of Text for Direct Clinical Use (n = 14, 27.5%), Answering Standardized Exam Questions (n = 12, 23.5%), and Clinical Judgement and Decision-Making Support (n = 11, 21.6%). The most frequently used LLMs were GPT-3.5 (n = 30, 58.8%), GPT-4 (n = 20, 39.2%), Bard (n = 9, 17.6%), and Bing (n = 6, 11.8%). Most studies (n = 43, 84.3%) used LLMs directly out-of-the-box, while 8 studies (15.7%) conducted advanced pre-training or fine-tuning.

conclusionsLarge language models show advanced capabilities in complex tasks and hold potential to transform neurosurgery. However, research typically addresses basic applications and overlooks enhancing LLM performance, facing reproducibility issues. Standardizing detailed reporting, considering LLM stochasticity, and using advanced methods beyond basic validation are essential for progress.

Indexed as

NeurosurgeryNeurosurgical ProceduresHumansLanguageArtificial intelliegenceLarge language modelsNeurosurgery

Identifiers

PMID39579215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.