Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-08994-8 | DOI Listing |