DOI 10.1007/s00586-025-08994-8
Evaluation of retrieval-augmented generation and large language models in clinical guidelines for degenerative spine conditions.
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Degenerative spinal diseases often require complex, patient-specific treatment, presenting a compelling challenge for artificial intelligence (AI) integration into clinical practice. While existing literature has focused on ChatGPT-4o performance in individual spine conditions, this study compares ChatGPT-4o, a traditional large language model (LLM), against NotebookLM, a novel retrieval-augmented model (RAG-LLM) supplemented with North American Spine Society (NASS) guidelines, for concordance with all five published NASS guidelines for degenerative spinal diseases.
METHODS
A total of 118 questions from NASS guidelines regarding five degenerative spinal conditions were presented to ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM. All responses were scored based on accuracy, evidence-based conclusions, supplementary and complete information.
RESULTS
Overall, NotebookLM provided significantly more accurate responses (98.3% vs. 40.7%, p < 0.05), more evidence-based conclusions (99.1% vs. 40.7%, p < 0.05), and more complete information (94.1% vs. 79.7%, p < 0.05), while ChatGPT-4o provided more supplementary information (98.3% vs. 67.8%, p < 0.05). These discrepancies became most prominent in nonsurgical and surgical interventions, wherein ChatGPT often produced recommendations with unsubstantiated certainty.
CONCLUSION
While RAG-LLMs are a promising tool for clinical decision-making assistance and show significant improvement from prior models, physicians should remain cautious when integrating AI into patient care, especially in the context of nuanced medical scenarios.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.