ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026
Automated data extraction for systematic reviews using GPT-5.2 and Google Gemini Pro 3: A dual-large language model approach in orthopaedic research.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy, agreement, and efficiency of a dual-large language model (LLM) approach using Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 5.2 (GPT-5.2) and Google Gemini 3 Pro for automated data extraction in orthopaedic systematic reviews.
methodsEight studies from a previously published systematic review on paediatric revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were used to test extraction accuracy, agreement, and efficiency against a pre-defined gold-standard. Both GPT 5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro were prompted via the OpenAI and Google Application Programming Interface (API). Each study had a total of 48 equally weighted data fields to extract from spanning six domains: study characteristics, participant details, injury characteristics, primary and revision surgery details, and outcomes. Extractions were graded as correct, partially correct, or incorrect in reference to the gold-standard.
resultsAcross all 384 fields, both LLMs produced fully correct outputs in 315 (82%) cases, while at least one model was fully correct in 365 (95.1%). Among the six extraction domains, study characteristics (100%, 32/32), injury characteristics (93.8%, 30/32), and outcomes (91.1%, 102/112) showed the highest percentage of at least one model being correct. The entire extraction task was completed in 27 and 35.8 min by GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro, respectively, for a total API cost of $3.22USD.
conclusionA parallel-LLM approach using GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro achieved strong accuracy with a high degree of efficiency for automated data extraction in an orthopaedic systematic review. Most errors were due to omission of minor details in complex domains such as surgical details. At least one model was fully correct in over 95% of fields, supporting the use of a dual-LLM framework as a reliable first-pass tool for human verification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.