Artificial intelligence generated operative reports for common spine surgeries: how close are they to the real thing?
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Study Design: Randomized controlled survey study. Purpose: Evaluate the level of similarity between AI-generated and fellowship-trained spine surgeon-written operative reports. Overview of Literature: Large language models (LLMs) are a subset of generative artificial intelligence (AI) designed to produce human-like text. LLMs have demonstrated an ability to generate contextually accurate, detailed, and coherent writing across various domains. Their potential to enhance healthcare efficiency, particularly in streamlining medical documentation such as operative notes, is of growing interest. Methods: Operative reports for two common spine surgeries—anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and lumbar microdiscectomy were generated using ChatGPT-3 (OpenAI). A fellowship-trained spine surgeon wrote corresponding operative reports. These reports were randomized and presented to attending surgeons, fellows, and residents in orthopedic or neurosurgery, who were asked to identify whether each report was written by AI. Results: Fifty-two respondents completed the survey. For ACDF, 69.2% correctly identified AI-generated reports ( P =0.050); for lumbar microdiscectomy, 61.5% were correct ( P =0.239). In side-by-side comparisons, correct identification improved to 79.2% for ACDF ( P =0.004) and 60% for microdiscectomy ( P =0.317). Accuracy increased with training level, from 55.6% among residents to 100% among attending spine surgeons. Most participants reported that AI-generated reports had human-like language (86.3%), adequate detail (68.6%), essential procedural steps (78.4%), and accurate descriptions (68.6%). Notably, 87.5% expressed interest in incorporating AI into future operative documentation. Conclusions: Differentiation of AI-generated operative reports improves with training level. These reports share many characteristics with surgeon-written notes and are viewed favorably, suggesting a future role for AI in surgical documentation. Level of Evidence: II
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Artificial intelligence generated operative reports for common spine surgeries: how close are they to the real thing?
- Date Crossref
- 20/02/2026
- Éditeur
- Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
University of Maryland Department of Orthopaedics pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University of Maryland Medical Center pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery pays non établi dans la noticeOrganisation à but non lucratif
-
Author contributions: Anthony K. Chiu pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
-
Conflicts of Interest: The following potential conflicts of interest and funding sources have been declared by the authors below. For the remaining authors none were declared. BS: Maryland Orthopaedic Association: Board or committee member. JJ: Children: Editorial or governing board. DC: Alphatec Sp pays non établi dans la noticeOrganisation à but non lucratif
-
IRB Approval: This research has been deemed exempt by the institutional review board (HP-00105748) pays non établi dans la noticeStructure de recherche
Department of Orthopaedics — University of Maryland, University of Maryland Medical Center et American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery, avec 3 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.