骨科文献综述中流行的大语言模型的评价:与先前发表的综述的比较。

IF 1.8 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Jie J Yao, Ryan D Lopez, Adam A Rizk, Manan Aggarwal, Surena Namdari
{"title":"骨科文献综述中流行的大语言模型的评价:与先前发表的综述的比较。","authors":"Jie J Yao, Ryan D Lopez, Adam A Rizk, Manan Aggarwal, Surena Namdari","doi":"10.22038/ABJS.2025.84896.3874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Large language models (LLMs) may improve the process of conducting systematic literature reviews. Our aim was to evaluate the utility of one popular LLM chatbot, Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), in systematic literature reviews when compared to traditionally conducted reviews.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified five systematic reviews published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 2021 to 2022. We retrieved the clinical questions, methodologies, and included studies for each review. We evaluated ChatGPT's performance on three tasks. (1) For each published systematic review's core clinical question, ChatGPT designed a relevant database search strategy. (2) ChatGPT screened the abstracts of those articles identified by that search strategy for inclusion in a review. (3) For one systematic review, ChatGPT reviewed each individual manuscript identified after screening to identify those that fit inclusion criteria. We compared the performance of ChatGPT on each of these three tasks to the previously published systematic reviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT captured a median of 91% (interquartile range, IQR 84%, 94%) of articles in the published systematic reviews. After screening of these abstracts, ChatGPT was able to capture a median of 75% (IQR 70%, 79%) of articles included in the published systematic reviews. On in-depth screening of manuscripts, ChatGPT captured only 55% of target publications; however, this improved to 100% on review of the manuscripts that ChatGPT identified on this step. Qualitative analysis of ChatGPT's performance highlighted the importance of prompt design and engineering.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using published reviews as a gold standard, ChatGPT demonstrated ability in replicating fundamental tasks for orthopedic systematic review. Cautious use and supervision of this general purpose LLM, ChatGPT, may aid in the process of systematic literature review. Further study and discussion regarding the role of LLMs in literature review is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":46704,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","volume":"13 8","pages":"460-469"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12432827/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of a Popular Large Language Model in Orthopedic Literature Review: Comparison to Previously Published Reviews.\",\"authors\":\"Jie J Yao, Ryan D Lopez, Adam A Rizk, Manan Aggarwal, Surena Namdari\",\"doi\":\"10.22038/ABJS.2025.84896.3874\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Large language models (LLMs) may improve the process of conducting systematic literature reviews. Our aim was to evaluate the utility of one popular LLM chatbot, Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), in systematic literature reviews when compared to traditionally conducted reviews.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified five systematic reviews published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 2021 to 2022. We retrieved the clinical questions, methodologies, and included studies for each review. We evaluated ChatGPT's performance on three tasks. (1) For each published systematic review's core clinical question, ChatGPT designed a relevant database search strategy. (2) ChatGPT screened the abstracts of those articles identified by that search strategy for inclusion in a review. (3) For one systematic review, ChatGPT reviewed each individual manuscript identified after screening to identify those that fit inclusion criteria. We compared the performance of ChatGPT on each of these three tasks to the previously published systematic reviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT captured a median of 91% (interquartile range, IQR 84%, 94%) of articles in the published systematic reviews. After screening of these abstracts, ChatGPT was able to capture a median of 75% (IQR 70%, 79%) of articles included in the published systematic reviews. On in-depth screening of manuscripts, ChatGPT captured only 55% of target publications; however, this improved to 100% on review of the manuscripts that ChatGPT identified on this step. Qualitative analysis of ChatGPT's performance highlighted the importance of prompt design and engineering.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using published reviews as a gold standard, ChatGPT demonstrated ability in replicating fundamental tasks for orthopedic systematic review. Cautious use and supervision of this general purpose LLM, ChatGPT, may aid in the process of systematic literature review. Further study and discussion regarding the role of LLMs in literature review is needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS\",\"volume\":\"13 8\",\"pages\":\"460-469\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12432827/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2025.84896.3874\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2025.84896.3874","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:大型语言模型(llm)可以改善进行系统文献综述的过程。我们的目的是评估一种流行的LLM聊天机器人聊天生成预训练转换器(ChatGPT)在系统文献综述中的效用,并将其与传统进行的综述进行比较。方法:我们确定了2021年至2022年发表在《骨与关节外科杂志》上的5篇系统综述。我们检索了临床问题、方法,并为每个综述纳入了研究。我们在三个任务上评估了ChatGPT的性能。(1)针对每一篇已发表的系统综述的核心临床问题,ChatGPT设计了相应的数据库检索策略。(2) ChatGPT筛选通过该搜索策略识别的文章摘要,以便纳入综述。(3)对于一个系统综述,ChatGPT审查筛选后确定的每个单独的稿件,以确定符合纳入标准的稿件。我们将ChatGPT在这三个任务中的性能与之前发表的系统评论进行了比较。结果:ChatGPT在已发表的系统评价中捕获了91%(四分位数范围,IQR 84%, 94%)的文章。在筛选这些摘要后,ChatGPT能够捕获中位数为75% (IQR为70%,79%)的纳入已发表的系统评价的文章。在深入筛选手稿时,ChatGPT只捕获了55%的目标出版物;然而,在对ChatGPT在此步骤中确定的手稿进行审查后,这一比例提高到了100%。对ChatGPT性能的定性分析强调了快速设计和工程的重要性。结论:使用已发表的综述作为金标准,ChatGPT显示了在骨科系统评价中复制基本任务的能力。谨慎使用和监督这个通用LLM, ChatGPT,可能有助于系统的文献综述过程。法学硕士在文献综述中的作用有待进一步研究和探讨。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluation of a Popular Large Language Model in Orthopedic Literature Review: Comparison to Previously Published Reviews.

Evaluation of a Popular Large Language Model in Orthopedic Literature Review: Comparison to Previously Published Reviews.

Evaluation of a Popular Large Language Model in Orthopedic Literature Review: Comparison to Previously Published Reviews.

Objectives: Large language models (LLMs) may improve the process of conducting systematic literature reviews. Our aim was to evaluate the utility of one popular LLM chatbot, Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), in systematic literature reviews when compared to traditionally conducted reviews.

Methods: We identified five systematic reviews published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 2021 to 2022. We retrieved the clinical questions, methodologies, and included studies for each review. We evaluated ChatGPT's performance on three tasks. (1) For each published systematic review's core clinical question, ChatGPT designed a relevant database search strategy. (2) ChatGPT screened the abstracts of those articles identified by that search strategy for inclusion in a review. (3) For one systematic review, ChatGPT reviewed each individual manuscript identified after screening to identify those that fit inclusion criteria. We compared the performance of ChatGPT on each of these three tasks to the previously published systematic reviews.

Results: ChatGPT captured a median of 91% (interquartile range, IQR 84%, 94%) of articles in the published systematic reviews. After screening of these abstracts, ChatGPT was able to capture a median of 75% (IQR 70%, 79%) of articles included in the published systematic reviews. On in-depth screening of manuscripts, ChatGPT captured only 55% of target publications; however, this improved to 100% on review of the manuscripts that ChatGPT identified on this step. Qualitative analysis of ChatGPT's performance highlighted the importance of prompt design and engineering.

Conclusion: Using published reviews as a gold standard, ChatGPT demonstrated ability in replicating fundamental tasks for orthopedic systematic review. Cautious use and supervision of this general purpose LLM, ChatGPT, may aid in the process of systematic literature review. Further study and discussion regarding the role of LLMs in literature review is needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) aims to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of Orthopedic Sciences. The journal accepts scientific papers including original research, review article, short communication, case report, and letter to the editor in all fields of bone, joint, musculoskeletal surgery and related researches. The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) will publish papers in all aspects of today`s modern orthopedic sciences including: Arthroscopy, Arthroplasty, Sport Medicine, Reconstruction, Hand and Upper Extremity, Pediatric Orthopedics, Spine, Trauma, Foot and Ankle, Tumor, Joint Rheumatic Disease, Skeletal Imaging, Orthopedic Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation, Orthopedic Basic Sciences (Biomechanics, Biotechnology, Biomaterial..).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信