ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Comparative performance of LLMs and machine learning in predicting complications after percutaneous kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exploring large language models (LLMs) performance in the specific medical domain can help understand their generalizability in real-world application. We assessed the predictive and decision-support value of two state-of-the-art LLMs in predicting bone cement leakage (BCL) and new vertebral fractures (NVF) after percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) and to compare them with those of traditional machine learning (TML) and spine surgeon. This study utilized combined retrospective and prospective data at a single tertiary hospital. Two LLMs (GPT-5 and DeepSeek R1) with zero- and few-shot strategy, five TML models, and two spine surgeons with/without exposure to LLM responses, were asked to predict complications based on demographic, perioperative baseline, and radiographic data. We also tested LLMs' ability to predict complication subtype. For BCL prediction, both LLMs demonstrated acceptable performance (F1-score, 0.857-0.871; MCC, 0.164-0.332) under zero-shot conditions, comparable to TML models (F1-score, 0.758-0.867; MCC, 0.265-0.416), and slightly superior to surgeons alone (F1-score, 0.675-0.684; MCC, 0.074-0.185). Few-shot prompting enhanced specificity but yielded uncertain overall gains. For NVF prediction, the zero-shot LLM performance was poor (F1-score, 0.309; MCC, 0.044) but improved with few-shot learning. The RBF-SVM model showed the best performance for NVF prediction (F1-score, 0.536; MCC, 0.414). LLM explanations enhanced surgeon performance in BCL prediction but not in NVF. LLMs showed poor prediction of complication subtypes. The findings suggest that current LLMs hold diverse predictive performances for different complications after PKP, they are still immature for real clinical applicability and need further improvement.
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.