ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Exploratory study of large language models in surgical decision-making for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter analysis based on multisource clinical information.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Large Language Models in Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review of Clinical Efficacy, Technical Integration, and Ethical Paradigms.Global spine journal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the performance of large language models (LLMs) in surgical decision-making for lumbar disc herniation (LDH), and to evaluate the impact of radiology report text and manually summarized clinical information on model decision outputs.
methodsA total of 48 LDH cases from multiple centers were included. Four mainstream LLMs (GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-R1, and Grok-4) were used to perform a binary classification task (surgical vs. conservative treatment). Two input scenarios were designed: Group A used radiology report text only, while Group B incorporated additional manually summarized clinical information based on the same reports. Primary performance metrics included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and F1 score. Cohen’s kappa was reported as a supplementary measure of agreement. Decision confidence was further analyzed using stratified analysis.
resultsUsing radiology report text alone, GPT-5 demonstrated relatively strong diagnostic performance, with a sensitivity of 0.92, specificity of 0.58, and accuracy of 0.75. After incorporating clinical information, its accuracy increased to 0.85, with improvements observed in specificity, PPV, NPV, and F1 score. Gemini and Grok also showed performance improvement following the addition of clinical information, whereas DeepSeek-R1 exhibited minimal change across input scenarios. McNemar’s test indicated that only Gemini showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.013). Confidence analysis showed that the inclusion of clinical information increased the coverage of high-confidence predictions in most models; however, the alignment between high-confidence outputs and actual clinical decisions varied across models.
conclusionThis exploratory study suggests that adding clinical information, such as symptoms, disease duration, and prior treatment, to radiology report text may help some LLMs produce outputs that are more consistent with actual clinical decisions in LDH. However, the findings are limited by the small sample size, the quality of the input data, and the complexity of real clinical decision-making. Further validation in larger studies with more complete information is still needed.
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.