ArticleActa neurochirurgica2025
Large language models for extraction of OPS-codes from operative reports in meningioma surgery.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing GPT-5 for Operation-Procedure-Code-Extraction from Operative Reports in Meningioma Surgery: Feasibility and Comparison of Context-Enhancements.Applied clinical informatics · 2026Article
- [Skull base surgery-where do we stand?]HNO · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the German medical billing system, surgical departments encode their procedures in OPS-codes. These OPS-codes have major impact on DRG grouping and thus mainly determine each case´s revenue. In our study, we investigate the ability of the Large Language Model (LLM) GPT to derive correct OPS codes from the surgical report.
methodsFor our study, 100 patients who underwent meningioma surgery at our clinic between 2023 and 2024 were examined. We recorded the OPS codes assigned by the surgeon after the procedure, as well as the final coding by the hospital´s coders before case closure. In addition, the surgical report was extracted and anonymously provided to GPT-4o and GPT CodeMedic together with the current OPS-catalogue. The coding of each group was analyzed descriptively and compared using the Chi-Square test. Additionally, errors and deviations were assessed and analyzed.
resultsIn our analyses, coders (100%) and surgeons (99%) demonstrated to significantly perform higher than LLMs in sufficient coding, for which the basic coding must be correct and unquestionable (GPT-4o 78%, GPT CodeMedic 89%; p < 0.01). For optimal coding, where every code potentially contributing to increase the revenue must be included, only the coders (94%) achieved superiority (GPT-4o p < 0.01; GPT CodeMedic p = 0.02), whereas GPT CodeMedic (83%) even outperformed surgeons (69%) (p = 0.03). The specialized GPT CodeMedic tends to show fewer hallucinations compared to GPT-4o (7% vs. 15%).
conclusionGPT is capable of extracting OPS codes from surgical reports. The most frequent errors made by LLMs can be attributed to a lack of specialized training. Currently, professional coders still significantly outperform LLMs in sufficient and optimal coding. For optimal coding however, GPT shows to perform comparably to surgeon´s coding skills. This indicates, that in near future after further training, LLMs may take over this task from surgeons without loss in quality.
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.