ReviewJournal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS2026
Large Language Models in Surgery: Promise, Pitfalls, and Practical Use.
Review in Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large Language Models (LLMs) represent a transformative advancement in artificial intelligence (AI) with rapidly expanding applications in medicine. While AI-related medical publications increased 36-fold between 2000-2022, practical guidance for surgeons remains limited. This mini-review delineates pragmatic applications of LLMs in surgical practice while addressing key limitations, implementation considerations, and ethical considerations. Methods: We reviewed contemporary LLM platforms and their integration into clinical workflows, patient communication, surgical research and academic writing, evaluating both benefits, constraints and risk mitigation relevant to practicing surgeons. Findings: LLMs demonstrate significant utility across multiple domains. In clinical workflows, ambient documentation and chart summarization may reduce documentation burden and support rapid synthesis of complex patient data. For patient communication, these tools can simplify complex medical information, tailor or translate patient instructions to appropriate reading levels or languages, and generate empathetic responses to patient messages with improved efficiency. In research, LLMs assist with literature summarization, study design optimization, and risk of bias assessment in RCT, allowing surgeons to focus on higher-level scientific reasoning. Despite promising applications, several constraints demand attention. Effective prompting requires specific techniques including clear clinical objectives, explicit instructions, and iterative refinement. LLM outputs require verification to prevent "hallucinations" - fabricated or inaccurate information. Protected health information (PHI) must never be entered into public LLM platforms to maintain HIPAA compliance. Liability frameworks for AI-generated errors remain ambiguous, with unclear responsibility deferred amongst providers, institutions, and developers. Conclusion: LLMs offer surgeons valuable tools for enhancing workflow efficiency and patient communication when deployed with appropriate oversight. Success requires understanding prompt engineering principles, maintaining rigorous fact-checking protocols, protecting patient privacy, and recognizing that human judgment remains irreplaceable in clinical decision-making.
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.