ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026
Using a large language model as a third reviewer to augment dual human full-text screening in orthopaedic systematic reviews.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLarge language models (LLMs) are a form of artificial intelligence (AI) that have emerged as potential tools to augment systematic review workflows. This study aimed to evaluate GPT-5 as a third reviewer for full-text screening across orthopaedic subspecialties.
methodsThree review topics were selected. Python scripts were developed to call on the GPT-5 model via the OpenAI application programming interface (API) to perform full-text screening using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two human reviewers simultaneously performed screening based on the same 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 completion time.
resultsThe number of full-texts screened were 35, 70 and 146 amongst the three review topics. For topic one, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy and F1 scores were 100% each. For topic two, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy and F1 scores were 93.3%, 98.2%, 93.3%, 98.2%, 97.1% and 93.3% respectively. For topic three, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy and F1 scores were 93.3%, 100%, 100%, 99.2%, 99.3% and 96.7%, respectively. Time to completion ranged between 18.1 and 58 min. Cost ranged from $0.84 to $3.29 USD.
conclusionGPT-5 demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy as a third reviewer for full-text screening across three different subspecialties, with high agreement with final consensus adjudication decisions. These findings suggest that modern LLMs can potentially augment dual-review screening workflows by providing efficient decision-support while preserving methodological rigour. However, the small number of included studies within each topic resulted in wide confidence intervals, and additional validation across larger datasets are necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.
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.