ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2023
Evaluating the Quality and Usability of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Responses to Common Patient Questions in Foot and Ankle Surgery.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examining the Role of Large Language Models in Orthopedics: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating Generative Artificial Intelligence Models' Responses to Questions About Scaphoid Fracture and Scaphoid Nonunion.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language model responses to patient questions on ulnar collateral ligament repair.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Article
- Training a Bilingual Artificial Intelligence Model on Pediatric Orthopaedic Resources to Enhance the Readability of Patient Education Materials.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Article
- Evaluating Artificial Intelligence-Generated Responses to Patient Questions Regarding Orthobiologic Injections.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5.2 responses to frequently asked questions about benign bone tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Human evaluation of large language models in healthcare: gaps, challenges, and the need for standardization.npj health systems · 2025Article
- ChatGPT can provide satisfactory answers to patient questions regarding biceps tenodesis.JSES international · 2025Article
- Evaluating evidence-based health information from generative AI using a cross-sectional study with laypeople seeking screening information.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Addressing Questions Regarding the Management of Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2025Article
- Assessing ChatGPT responses to common patient questions regarding total ankle arthroplasty.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Acute Achilles tendon rupture: how well can artificial intelligence chatbots answer patient inquiries?Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- A Study of Orthopedic Patient Leaflets and Readability of AI-Generated Text in Foot and Ankle Surgery (SOLE-AI).Cureus · 2024Article
- A framework for human evaluation of large language models in healthcare derived from literature review.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Mixed methods assessment of the influence of demographics on medical advice of ChatGPT.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- A Use Case for Generative AI in Medical Education.JMIR medical education · 2024Article
- Large language models in patient education: a scoping review of applications in medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- ChatGPT-4 Knows Its A B C D E but Cannot Cite Its Source.JB & JS open accessReview
- ChatGPT as a source of surgical information: Evaluation of responses to patient questions on hallux rigidus fusion.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) platforms, such as ChatGPT, have become increasingly popular outlets for the consumption and distribution of health care-related advice. Because of a lack of regulation and oversight, the reliability of health care-related responses has become a topic of controversy in the medical community. To date, no study has explored the quality of AI-derived information as it relates to common foot and ankle pathologies. This study aims to assess the quality and educational benefit of ChatGPT responses to common foot and ankle-related questions. Methods: ChatGPT was asked a series of 5 questions, including "What is the optimal treatment for ankle arthritis?" "How should I decide on ankle arthroplasty versus ankle arthrodesis?" "Do I need surgery for Jones fracture?" "How can I prevent Charcot arthropathy?" and "Do I need to see a doctor for my ankle sprain?" Five responses (1 per each question) were included after applying the exclusion criteria. The content was graded using DISCERN (a well-validated informational analysis tool) and AIRM (a self-designed tool for exercise evaluation). Results: Health care professionals graded the ChatGPT-generated responses as bottom tier 4.5% of the time, middle tier 27.3% of the time, and top tier 68.2% of the time. Conclusion: Although ChatGPT and other related AI platforms have become a popular means for medical information distribution, the educational value of the AI-generated responses related to foot and ankle pathologies was variable. With 4.5% of responses receiving a bottom-tier rating, 27.3% of responses receiving a middle-tier rating, and 68.2% of responses receiving a top-tier rating, health care professionals should be aware of the high viewership of variable-quality content easily accessible on ChatGPT. Level of Evidence: Level III, cross sectional study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.