Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38477743›Full record

ArticleJournal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research2024

The performance of artificial intelligence chatbot large language models to address skeletal biology and bone health queries.

Michelle Cung, Branden Sosa, He S Yang, Michelle M McDonald, Brya G Matthews, Annegreet G Vlug, Erik A Imel, Marc N Wein, Emily Margaret Stein, Matthew B Greenblatt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Application of large language models in oral health education: a review of the literature.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

10 authors.

Michelle CungDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10065, United States.
Branden SosaDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10065, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1054-2917
He S YangDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10065, United States.
Michelle M McDonaldSkeletal Diseases Program, The Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, 2010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3928-2506
Brya G MatthewsDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Pathology, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Annegreet G VlugCenter for Bone Quality, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, 2300, The Netherlands.
Erik A ImelIndiana Center for Musculoskeletal Health, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7284-3467
Marc N WeinEndocrine Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6015-8147
Emily Margaret SteinDivision of Endocrinology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY 10021, United States.
Matthew B GreenblattDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10065, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9794-8532

Funding

Resource CoreP30AR072581 · NIAMS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI Erik Allen Imel · 2017 to 2026
$8.3M
Discovery of a stem cell driving breast cancer spine metastasesR01CA282815 · NCI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Matthew Blake Greenblatt · 2024 to 2026
$2.4M
Modulation of Bone Formation by SHN3DP5OD021351 · OD · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI GREENBLATT, MATTHEW BLAKE · 2015 to 2019
$2.1M
"Establishing Pathways for Endothelial Support of Bone Formation with SLIT3"R01AR075585 · NIAMS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI GREENBLATT, MATTHEW BLAKE · 2020 to 2024
$1.8M
A skeletal stem cell orchestrating limb regenerationR01HD115274 · NICHD · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Matthew Blake Greenblatt, Xu Yang · 2024 to 2026
$1.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA282815NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072581NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR075585NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD115274NIH HHS DP5 OD021351NIH HHS DP5OD021351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots utilizing large language models (LLMs) have recently garnered significant interest due to their ability to generate humanlike responses to user inquiries in an interactive dialog format. While these models are being increasingly utilized to obtain medical information by patients, scientific and medical providers, and trainees to address biomedical questions, their performance may vary from field to field. The opportunities and risks these chatbots pose to the widespread understanding of skeletal health and science are unknown. Here we assess the performance of 3 high-profile LLM chatbots, Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) 4.0, BingAI, and Bard, to address 30 questions in 3 categories: basic and translational skeletal biology, clinical practitioner management of skeletal disorders, and patient queries to assess the accuracy and quality of the responses. Thirty questions in each of these categories were posed, and responses were independently graded for their degree of accuracy by four reviewers. While each of the chatbots was often able to provide relevant information about skeletal disorders, the quality and relevance of these responses varied widely, and ChatGPT 4.0 had the highest overall median score in each of the categories. Each of these chatbots displayed distinct limitations that included inconsistent, incomplete, or irrelevant responses, inappropriate utilization of lay sources in a professional context, a failure to take patient demographics or clinical context into account when providing recommendations, and an inability to consistently identify areas of uncertainty in the relevant literature. Careful consideration of both the opportunities and risks of current AI chatbots is needed to formulate guidelines for best practices for their use as source of information about skeletal health and biology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBone and BonesBone DiseasesHumansartificial intelligenceBardBingAIChatGPTlarge language modelsskeletal biology

Identifiers

PMID38477743
PMCPMC11184616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 OpenQuestion graph.