Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40619525›Full record

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.

Audrey Y Su, Ashley Knebel, Andrew Y Xu, Marco Kaper, Phillip Schmitt, Joseph E Nassar, Manjot Singh, Michael J Farias, Jinho Kim, Bassel G Diebo and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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 · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

11 authors.

Audrey Y SuWarren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, USA.
Ashley KnebelWarren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, USA.
Andrew Y XuWarren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, USA.
Marco KaperWarren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, USA.
Phillip SchmittWarren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, USA.
Joseph E NassarWarren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, USA.
Manjot SinghWarren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, USA.
Michael J FariasWarren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, USA.
Jinho KimWarren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, USA.
Bassel G DieboDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery at Brown University, Providence, USA.
Alan H DanielsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery at Brown University, Providence, USA. alandanielsmd@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligencePractice Guidelines as TopicSpinal DiseasesHumansLarge Language ModelsArtificial intelligenceChatGPT-4oDegenerative spinal diseasesLarge Language modelsNotebookLMRetrieval-augmented generation

Identifiers

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.