ArticleJOR spine2026
Alignment Between Large Language Models and Consensus in Endoscopic Spinal Disc Surgery: A Comparative Analysis Against the Neurocore-SENSED.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Neurocore-SENSED framework, derived from a three-round modified Delphi process involving 77 international spine surgeons, provides a structured reference standard for reporting in endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) for disc disease. The ability of large language models (LLMs) to reproduce graded levels of expert agreement within a reporting framework has not been examined in ESS. Objective: To evaluate the extent to which three contemporary LLMs align with the Neurocore-SENSED consensus and whether they discriminate between items of differing consensus level. Methods: In January 2026, each of the 166 framework items with published item-level endorsement data was submitted once to GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 4.6, in independent sessions with web retrieval disabled. Models selected one of five ordered response options directly. Alignment was assessed by Spearman correlation with panel endorsement and by four measures of categorical agreement, each with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals. Separate protocols examined response stability, response format, and prior exposure to the consensus. Results: All three models correlated significantly with panel endorsement. Gemini 3 Pro aligned most closely ( Conclusion: Current LLMs reproduce the broad rank ordering of expert endorsement in ESS reporting but cannot reliably distinguish endorsed from contested propositions, principally because of a positive response bias.
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.