ArticleJournal of medical systems2025
Evaluating Large Language Models for Automated CPT Code Prediction in Endovascular Neurosurgery.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural Language Processing for Automated Classification of Cleft and Craniofacial Procedures From Operative Notes: Model Development and Feasibility Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Observational
- Evaluation of Large Language Models for Automated SimpleFoot & ankle orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Generative AI costs in large healthcare systems, an example in revenue cycle.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Large language models for extraction of OPS-codes from operative reports in meningioma surgery.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Employing large language models safely and effectively as a practicing neurosurgeon.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have been utilized to automate tasks like writing discharge summaries and operative reports in neurosurgery. The present study evaluates their ability to identify current procedural terminology (CPT) codes from operative reports. Three LLMs (ChatGPT 4.0, AtlasGPT and Gemini) were evaluated in their ability to provide CPT codes for diagnostic or interventional procedures in endovascular neurosurgery at a single institution. Responses were classified as correct, partially correct or incorrect, and the percentage of correctly identified CPT codes were calculated. The Chi-Square test and Kruskal Wallis test were used to compare responses across LLMs. A total of 30 operative notes were used in the present study. AtlasGPT identified CPT codes for 98.3% procedures with partially correct responses, while ChatGPT and Gemini provided partially correct responses for 86.7% and 30% procedures, respectively (P < 0.001). AtlasGPT identified CPT codes correctly in an average of 35.3% of procedures, followed by ChatGPT (35.1%) and Gemini (8.9%) (P < 0.001). A pairwise comparison among three LLMs revealed that AtlasGPT and ChatGPT outperformed Gemini. Untrained LLMs have the ability to identify partially correct CPT codes in endovascular neurosurgery. Training these models could further enhance their ability to identify CPT codes and minimize healthcare expenditure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39853605What 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.