ArticleScientific reports2025
Cross language transformation of free text into structured lobectomy surgical records from a multi center study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large Language Models in Lung Cancer: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in thoracic surgery: a narrative review of clinical advances and applications in 2025.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for perioperative precision in surgical oncology.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Factors Influencing Adoption of Large Language Models in Health Care: Multicenter Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- Privacy-, linguistic-, and information-preserving synthesis of clinical documentation through generative agents.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a recent study, the effectiveness of GPT-4 Omni in transforming lobectomy surgical records into structured data across multiple languages was explored. The aim was to improve both efficiency and accuracy in documenting thoracic surgical oncology procedures. Involving 466 records from seven specialized hospitals, the process started with OCR and text normalization. A manual restructuring by thoracic oncologists set the benchmark for fine-tuning Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 Omni (GPT-4o). Experts reviewed the AI's output, assessing it on accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 scores. GPT-4o demonstrated high performance across both Chinese and English records, achieving an accuracy of 0.966, precision of 0.981, recall of 0.982, and an F1-score of 0.982 in both language settings. Results showed that GPT-4o was highly effective in both Chinese and English, significantly speeding up documentation compared to traditional methods. While it performed well across languages and reduced review times, common error types included terminology misinterpretations (2.82%), procedural sequence errors (1.41%), and omissions of key details (0.47%). While it performed well across languages and reduced review times, these limitations highlight areas for further refinement, particularly in enhancing contextual understanding and mitigating minor errors. Nonetheless, GPT-4o shows great potential in standardizing surgical records, streamlining workflows, and boosting care and research in thoracic oncology.
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.