Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40911114›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgical review2025

Current trends and future prospects of language models and processing systems in spine surgery - a scoping review.

Vivek Sanker, Emil O R Nordin, Philip Heesen, Mohamed Attia Elfadali, Mariam Anwar, Renuka Devi Chintapalli, María José Cavagnaro, Corinna C Zygourakis, John K Ratliff, Atman M Desai

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 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. Article
  4. Review
  5. Large language models in spine care and research.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
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors.

Vivek SankerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. vsanker@stanford.edu.
Emil O R NordinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Philip HeesenUniversity of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Mohamed Attia ElfadaliDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mansoura Manchester Program for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Mariam AnwarDepartment of Neurosurgery, Baqai Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Renuka Devi ChintapalliDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
María José CavagnaroDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Corinna C ZygourakisDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
John K RatliffDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Atman M DesaiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural language processing (NLPs) and Large language models (LLM), such as ChatGPT, represent transformative advancements in artificial intelligence (AI). Their implementation into the medical field has a broad potential, and this review discusses the current trends and prospects of NLPs and LLMs in spine surgery, assessing their potential benefits, applications, and limitations. The methodology involved a comprehensive narrative review of existing English literature related to the use of NLPs and LLMs in spine surgery. We searched the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus from inception until 16th June 2025 using keywords evolving around LLM, natural language processing and spine surgery. Original studies, clinical reports, and case series were included, while abstracts or unpublished studies were excluded. From 221 initial records, 37 studies were included: 18 evaluated LLMs and 19 evaluated NLP-based tools. LLMs were commonly used for clinical decision-making (n = 8), patient counseling (n = 7), classification (n = 2), and in research (n = 1). NLPs were applied in classification tasks (n = 12), clinical decision-making (n = 3), patient counseling (n = 1), postoperative opioid monitoring (n = 2), and research registry development (n = 1). ChatGPT-4 achieved up to 92% accuracy in clinical recommendations, outperforming GPT-3.5 in multiple tasks. Comparative analyses have found that newer versions of LLMs, such as ChatGPT-4, outperform previous versions, evident by greater accuracy and to a lesser extent of artificial hallucination. However, limitations persist, including overconfident outputs, adherence gaps to clinical guidelines, and inconsistent patient readability. While this review suggests that NLPs and LLMs can have a significant impact on spine practice, it is important to keep their limitations in mind and implement them with caution. To maximize the benefits of these models in spine surgery, future research should focus on improving model sensitivity and specificity, promoting multi-disciplinary collaborations, and addressing ethical considerations regarding the use of language models in medical practice, including the inherent issue of hallucination of these models.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNatural Language ProcessingNeurosurgical ProceduresSpineClinical Decision-MakingHumansArtificial intelligenceChatGPTLarge language modelsSpine surgery

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.