ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
The role of large language models in the writing of surgical reviews: fact or fantasy?
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmidst the current enthusiasm concerning artificial intelligence and its possible application in the composition of different kinds of scientific and non-scientific written documents, we evaluated the usage of artificial intelligence for writing surgical short reviews.
methodsIn order to assess the formal and content quality of AI-generated texts compared to human written texts, ten AI-based text generators (five chatbots and five content creators) and four surgeons in training received the same prompt for a short scientific article on a liver surgery theme. All texts were anonymized and subsequently evaluated by three experienced liver surgeons based on a pre-defined scoring scheme, as well as for quality of references and readability according to readability indices. Furthermore, all texts were tested for plagiarism using PlagScan.
resultsOverall percentage of correct assessment for AI/non-AI generation by experienced surgeons lay at 78.57%. Human written text had a mean word count of 1054 versus 874 in AI-generated text, with a higher mean Flesh Reading Ease Score (FRE, 26.2 ± 5.1 versus 17.7 ± 6.1). References were PubMed-listed in 100% for human versus 46% for AI-generated text, with only one non-human text reaching 100% formally correct citation of references. PlagScan found 6.4%±1.3 mean resemblance to existing texts for human versus 7.6%±4.5 for AI-generated text. DISCUSSION: Overall, AI could already mislead experienced scientific surgeons in 26.7% of cases into believing it to be human. However, formal requirements, especially considering referencing, are still in great need of improvement with only one of AI-generated articles fulfilling our quality requirements.
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.