ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Automating Clavien-Dindo classification with large language models in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an exploratory study.
Article in World journal of urology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo explore the use of large language models for Clavien-Dindo classification of complications following percutaneous nephrolithotomy by benchmarking their performance against physician grading.
methodsWe evaluated ChatGPT, Copilot, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok and Llama for defining Clavien-Dindo grades, classifying complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and classifying case summaries with and without in-context prompting. Vignettes were obtained from a published consensus categorization of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications. We measured agreement with Gwet's AC2 coefficient and compared it with attending urologists and urology residents.
resultsAll models accurately defined the Clavien-Dindo classification and graded with almost perfect agreement complication descriptions and case summaries (0.97 to 0.98 overall agreement). Six attendings and 15 residents classified the same vignettes, demonstrating lower agreement than the chatbots (0.95, p < 0.001 for residents; 0.96, p = 0.03 for attendings; 0.95, p < 0.001 for all participants). Models' latency ranged from 0.77 to 3.90 min, while the fastest physician required 17 min to complete the same tasks. Models' intrarater reliability was almost perfect: from 0.97 to 0.99. Interrater reliability between chatbots (0.97, 95% confidence interval: 0.97-0.98) was significantly higher than among physicians (0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.92-0.94).
conclusionLarge language models show promise in being faster, more accurate, and precise than physicians in Clavien-Dindo classification in an experimental setting. We support the need for a prospective agreement study using real-world clinical records. We urge discussion of the legal and ethical implications.
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.