ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Feasibility of extracting key elements from thoracic surgical operative notes using foundational large language models.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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.
- Automated Identification of Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention from Cardiac Catheterization Reports using Large Language Models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in thoracic surgery: a narrative review of clinical advances and applications in 2025.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Operative notes contain key information vital to subsequent care of the patient; however, manual extraction of this information can be time-consuming. Large language models (LLMs) offer promise in this regard. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using LLMs to automatically extract key elements from thoracic surgical operative notes. Methods: We instructed three LLMs, Gemini, ChatGPT, and LLaMA to extract key information from 116 thoracic surgery operative notes. A blinded thoracic surgeon assessed accuracy, while two blinded physicians (an emergency physician and a radiologist) recorded the time needed to extract the key elements ("approach", "purpose of the procedure", "complications", and "devices left") manually and using LLM construct. Results: Gemini demonstrated the highest overall accuracy (95.3%), followed by ChatGPT (93.1%) and LLaMA (87.7%). The mean time to extract key elements was significantly lower when using LLMs: 22.1 Conclusions: With appropriate human supervision, LLMs can be used to automatically extract key information from thoracic surgical operative notes. Using LLMs for this task can save clinician time significantly, without compromising accuracy. Due to the availability of several LLM choices, including open- and closed-source, comparative evaluation is beneficial to address specific needs and constraints.
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.