ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Evaluation of retrieval-augmented generation and large language models in clinical guidelines for degenerative spine conditions.
Article in 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. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Decision Support in Rural Spine Care: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 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 · 2026Review
- Large Language Models in Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review of Clinical Efficacy, Technical Integration, and Ethical Paradigms.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Evaluation Methods for Inference-Time Retrieval-Augmented and Graph Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models in Health Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Medical large language models and systems in the clinical application of spinal diseases: Current status, challenges, and future prospects.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Review
- Article
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
purposeDegenerative spinal diseases often require complex, patient-specific treatment, presenting a compelling challenge for artificial intelligence (AI) integration into clinical practice. While existing literature has focused on ChatGPT-4o performance in individual spine conditions, this study compares ChatGPT-4o, a traditional large language model (LLM), against NotebookLM, a novel retrieval-augmented model (RAG-LLM) supplemented with North American Spine Society (NASS) guidelines, for concordance with all five published NASS guidelines for degenerative spinal diseases.
methodsA total of 118 questions from NASS guidelines regarding five degenerative spinal conditions were presented to ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM. All responses were scored based on accuracy, evidence-based conclusions, supplementary and complete information.
resultsOverall, NotebookLM provided significantly more accurate responses (98.3% vs. 40.7%, p < 0.05), more evidence-based conclusions (99.1% vs. 40.7%, p < 0.05), and more complete information (94.1% vs. 79.7%, p < 0.05), while ChatGPT-4o provided more supplementary information (98.3% vs. 67.8%, p < 0.05). These discrepancies became most prominent in nonsurgical and surgical interventions, wherein ChatGPT often produced recommendations with unsubstantiated certainty.
conclusionWhile RAG-LLMs are a promising tool for clinical decision-making assistance and show significant improvement from prior models, physicians should remain cautious when integrating AI into patient care, especially in the context of nuanced medical scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40619525What 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.