Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41718808›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

Large language models with image processing in automated Cobb angle.

Jonathan Gibson, Sanika Kharwadkar, Chuck Lam, William Harland, Morgan Jones, Rajesh Botchu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jonathan GibsonCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sanika KharwadkarKing's College London GKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, London, UK.
Chuck LamCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
William HarlandDepartment of Orthopaedics, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Morgan JonesDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Rajesh BotchuDepartment of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK. rajesh.botchu@nhs.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe degree of scoliosis is assessed through the Cobb angle, which quantifies severity and is measured by clinicians on radiographs. With the increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical workflows, there is uncertainty as to whether large language models (LLMs) with image processing capabilities can streamline and improve spinal deformity classification. This study aims to assess the diagnostic capabilities of 4 leading LLMs: ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Grok in calculating Cobb angles from radiographs.

methodsA cross-sectional analysis of 122 scoliosis patients was undertaken. Cobb angles were independently calculated using Horos software by a fellowship-trained radiologist, serving as the reference standard. All 122 radiographs were further uploaded to each of the 4 AI models to identify the type of scoliosis, generate a Cobb angle overlay and calculate the Cobb angle. Qualitative usability was assessed through pre-defined questions ranked on a Likert scale. Statistical tests included mean difference, paired t-tests and intraclass correlation coefficients.

resultsGemini produced no calculated Cobb angles. ChatGPT failed to produce Cobb angles in 90 radiographs, and, even when Cobb angles were calculated, there were large errors (MAE 58.6° ± 45.9°). Both Perplexity and Grok generated estimates for all thoracolumbar cases, with mean differences of 18.8° (± 13.3°) and 24.2° (± 18.3°), respectively. None of the AI models successfully identified the S-shaped scoliosis cases. All AI models demonstrated a difference greater than the clinically accepted difference (≤ 10%).

conclusionThis study concludes that current commercially available LLMs show limited accuracy in Cobb angle measurement. Whilst out of the 4 AI models assessed, Perplexity and Grok displayed the highest performance, no model displayed an acceptable clinical ability. These findings highlight the need for a dedicated and rigorous development of a spinal deformity AI tool before clinical integration of Cobb angle determination.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedLarge Language ModelsScoliosisArtificial IntelligenceCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleRadiographyArtificial intelligence, scoliosis, Cobb angle, large language models, technology

Identifiers

PMID41718808

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.