ReviewGlobal spine journal2026
Large Language Models in Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review of Clinical Efficacy, Technical Integration, and Ethical Paradigms.
Review in Global spine journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to Letter to the Editor for "Impact of Immunosuppression Type on 30-Day Postoperative Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Retrospective National Cohort Study of 66,162 Patients".Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Response to Comment on "Emergency Department Predictors of Mechanical Ventilation in Pediatric Spine Fracture Patients in the US".Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Neuroimmune Phenotyping as the Next Frontier in Chronic Pain Medicine for Musculoskeletal Back Pain.Current pain and headache reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignScoping review.ObjectivesTo map spine literature on large language models, characterize reported use cases, and identify evidence gaps limiting implementation.MethodsA scoping review was conducted according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidance. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched for English-language, peer-reviewed studies published from January 2023 through May 2026 that evaluated large language models in spinal disease, spine surgery, or spine-related care. Eligible studies were synthesized across clinical decision support, triage, patient communication, automation, surgical education, and implementation barriers.ResultsFifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Most evidence involved early evaluation of commercially available or general-purpose models rather than prospectively validated spine-specific systems. Reported applications included patient education, report simplification, coding support, emergency consultation simulation, spinal cord stimulation referral screening, conservative triage, and surgical education. Performance was strongest for structured text-based tasks, patient communication, documentation support, and simplified decision pathways. Performance was weaker for image interpretation, quantitative radiographic assessment, individualized operative planning, and granular procedure selection. Recurrent limitations included hallucinated or unsupported outputs, unreliable citation generation, limited multimodal capability, privacy and data-governance concerns, bias, unclear medicolegal accountability, and minimal validation.ConclusionsLarge language models are an adjunct in spine surgery, with the near-term role in clinician-supervised, text-centered workflows including patient communication, education, documentation, coding, guideline retrieval, and preliminary triage. Current evidence does not support autonomous diagnostic, radiographic, or operative decision-making. Future studies should prioritize spine-specific retrieval-augmented systems, validated multimodal workflows, privacy-preserving deployment, fairness assessment, and prospective evaluation using clinically meaningful outcomes.
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.