Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41326830›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2025

Evaluating the Efficacy and Efficiency of GPT-5 for Automated Title and Abstract Screening in Orthopedic Surgery Systematic Reviews.

Prushoth Vivekanantha, Helena Son, Luca Bernardini, Marc Daniel Bouchard, Olufemi R Ayeni, Jeffrey Kay

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Using a large language model as a third reviewer to augment dual human full-text screening in orthopaedic systematic reviews.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors.

Prushoth VivekananthaDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 1200 Main St West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1H4, Canada. prushoth.vivekanantha@medportal.ca.
Helena SonMichael de Groote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Luca BernardiniMary Heersink School of Global Health and Social Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Marc Daniel BouchardDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 1200 Main St West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1H4, Canada.
Olufemi R AyeniDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 1200 Main St West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1H4, Canada.
Jeffrey KayDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 1200 Main St West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1H4, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo analyze the efficacy and efficiency of current large language models (LLMs), specifically GPT-5 in screening titles and abstracts for three review topics within different subspecialties in orthopedics. RECENT

findingsPython scripts were developed to call on the GPT-5 model via OpenAIs application programming interface (API). Two human reviewers simultaneously performed screening based on the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. Performance metrics such as specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and F1 scores for GPT-5 were calculated based on a gold-standard inclusion and exclusion list developed by a third human adjudicator. Efficiency metrics included total cost and time to completion for each task. The number of titles and abstracts to screen ranged between 668 and 1,131 amongst the three review topics. All performance metrics were above 92.3% amongst all three topics, with sensitivities ranging from 94.1%-100%. Time to completion ranged between 38.5-174.3 minutes. Cost ranged from $1.32-$3.73USD GPT-5 demonstrated exceptional accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and F1 scores in automating title and abstract screening for three orthopedic systematic review topics in three different subspecialties. Results are similar to previous studies investigating the role of AI for screening, specifically increased accuracy and time-to-completion relative to humans. The average rate of screening ranged from 6.5-17.4 abstracts per minute and the average price ranged from $0.002-$0.0036USD per abstract, suggesting a high degree of efficiency compared to current standards.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceAutomationGPT-5Large language modelLLMSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41326830
PMCPMC12669451

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.