ArticleJOR spine2026
Large Language Models in Preclinical Spine Research: A Scoping Review and Expert Perspective on Evidence-Aware Experimental Workflows.
Article in JOR spine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preclinical spine research is limited by heterogeneous experimental reporting, fragmented documentation, and barriers to reproducibility and translational alignment. Large language models (LLMs) and related artificial intelligence (AI) technologies may support semantic interpretation, structured data extraction, and reasoning over biomedical text, but their role in experimental spine science remains unclear. This focused scoping review and expert perspective mapped current AI/LLM applications in spine research, quantified the preclinical evidence gap, and identified responsible integration opportunities. Methods: A structured search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was performed for studies published from January 2020 to January 2026 evaluating LLM, AI, chatbot, or advanced natural language processing applications in spine-related contexts. The search intentionally captured both LLM-specific and broader AI/chatbot applications to map the translational landscape. For this preclinical-focused analysis, the corpus was re-examined for experimental and translational use cases, supplemented by expert synthesis of methodologically relevant adjacent biomedical literature. Results: Of 792 records identified, 166 unique studies met inclusion criteria. Publication activity increased markedly over time. The literature was dominated by conversational assessment/patient-reported outcome measure applications (82/166; 49.4%), patient education/information quality studies (53/166; 31.9%), and other LLM/AI applications (19/166; 11.4%). Preclinical/basic science applications were rare (3/166; 1.8%) and used classical machine learning, deep learning, or broader AI frameworks rather than generative LLMs. The most credible near-term opportunities include schema-constrained data extraction, protocol completeness checking, ontology-aligned data structuring, and evidence-grounded workflow support under human supervision. Conclusion: In preclinical spine research, LLMs are best positioned as human-supervised workflow instruments for structuring fragmented experimental knowledge. Spine-specific validation and robust governance are essential for responsible translational use.
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.