ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Applications of Natural Language Processing in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Turing problems in otolaryngology: a scoping review of the principal challenges of artificial ıntelligence and large language models.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 · 2026Review
- Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence Methodology Reporting in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Patients' perception towards large language models in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery: a single-centre survey.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Evaluating Locally Run Large Language Models (Gemma 2, Mistral Nemo, and Llama 3) for Outpatient Otorhinolaryngology Care: Retrospective Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Applications of Natural Language Processing in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo review the current literature on the applications of natural language processing (NLP) within the field of otolaryngology. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL.
methodsThe preferred reporting Items for systematic reviews and meta-analyzes extension for scoping reviews checklist was followed. Databases were searched from the date of inception up to Dec 26, 2023. Original articles on the application of language-based models to otolaryngology patient care and research, regardless of publication date, were included. The studies were classified under the 2011 Oxford CEBM levels of evidence.
resultsOne-hundred sixty-six papers with a median publication year of 2024 (range 1982, 2024) were included. Sixty-one percent (102/166) of studies used ChatGPT and were published in 2023 or 2024. Sixty studies used NLP for clinical education and decision support, 42 for patient education, 14 for electronic medical record improvement, 5 for triaging, 4 for trainee education, 4 for patient monitoring, 3 for telemedicine, and 1 for medical translation. For research, 37 studies used NLP for extraction, classification, or analysis of data, 17 for thematic analysis, 5 for evaluating scientific reporting, and 4 for manuscript preparation.
conclusionThe role of NLP in otolaryngology is evolving, with ChatGPT passing OHNS board simulations, though its clinical application requires improvement. NLP shows potential in patient education and post-treatment monitoring. NLP is effective at extracting data from unstructured or large data sets. There is limited research on NLP in trainee education and administrative tasks. Guidelines for NLP use in research are critical.
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.