ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Artificial Intelligence for Automated Current Procedural Terminology Coding in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Using a Fine-tuned Hybrid Large Language Model.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding in plastic and reconstructive surgery is complex, time-intensive, and prone to error, particularly for procedures involving multiple CPT codes. Recent studies suggest that out-of-the-box large language models (LLMs) demonstrate inconsistent performance for surgical CPT coding. Methods: A retrospective comparative study evaluated CPT code set accuracy across baseline LLMs (OpenAI, Gemini, Anthropic), external professional auditors, and a fine-tuned hybrid LLM system (ProCode), using expert consensus coding as the reference standard. A total of 120 operative reports were analyzed by CPT code set complexity into low (1-2 codes), medium (3 codes), and high (≥4 codes) complexity, with 40 cases per group. Accuracy was defined as exact code set agreement with the reference standard. Results: ProCode demonstrated the highest accuracy across all complexity levels (low, 100%; medium, 80%; and high, 80%), outperforming human auditors and baseline LLMs. Baseline LLM accuracy declined noticeably with increasing complexity. Differences in correctness by method were significant overall and within each complexity tier (all Conclusions: A fine-tuned, domain-specific LLM substantially outperforms baseline LLMs and external professional auditors for automated CPT coding in plastic and reconstructive surgery, particularly for complex multicoded procedures. These findings support the role of specialized AI systems in improving coding accuracy and surgical billing workflows.
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.