ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2025
Evaluating the Efficacy and Efficiency of GPT-5 for Automated Title and Abstract Screening in Orthopedic Surgery Systematic Reviews.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Resources for the Screening of Titles and Abstracts in Systematic Reviews: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Automated data extraction for systematic reviews using GPT-5.2 and Google Gemini Pro 3: A dual-large language model approach in orthopaedic research.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Exploratory study of large language models in surgical decision-making for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter analysis based on multisource clinical information.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty in Complex Primary and Revision Cases: A Systematic Review.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.