ArticleScientific reports2026
Large language models for zero-shot procedure extraction in orthopedic surgery: a comparative evaluation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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 sports injury care: a comparative expert evaluation of GPT-4o and GPT-5.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Operative notes in electronic health records contain critical information for understanding surgical care, yet manual coding is time-consuming, costly, and inconsistent. Large language models (LLMs) promise to transform this process by automatically extracting detailed procedure information - a capability with significant implications for scaling clinical registries and advancing surgical research. Here, we conducted a large-scale evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs for zero-shot structured information extraction from orthopedic clinical notes. Fourteen open-source and proprietary models were tested on 800 real operative notes, annotated by both an orthopedic surgeon and an administrator using a curated list of 74 procedure classes. We compared model outputs to human annotations, assessing accuracy and exploring the effects of model scale, reasoning capabilities, and prompt design. We find that across models, LLMs consistently outperform administrator-assigned labels, achieving macro-F1 scores above 0.6 and improving over administrative coding by up to 10 points. Larger models and reasoning capabilities further boosted performance, though gains plateaued beyond 30 billion parameters. Performance varied by procedure frequency, revealing clear strengths and persistent challenges for rare or complex cases. Modern LLMs can already outperform routine administrative coding in extracting detailed surgical procedure data, pointing to a future where registry curation could be faster, cheaper, and more consistent. Yet, full alignment with surgical experts remains an open challenge- especially for rare procedures - emphasizing the need for domain adaptation and thoughtful deployment. Our findings illustrate how general-purpose LLMs can advance automated clinical data curation and inform the next generation of surgical informatics.
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.