ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2024
ChatGPT can yield valuable responses in the context of orthopaedic trauma surgery.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guideline-augmented prompting improves comparative preference and response consistency of large language model outputs for orthopaedic anaesthesia questions: A controlled prompting study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Large language models show distinct multidimensional performance profiles and variable reproducibility in consensus-based bone stress injury.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- RE: ChatGPT can yield valuable responses in the context of orthopaedic trauma surgery.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Review
- Benchmarking Open-Source Vision Language Models in Orthopedic In-Training Examination: A Comparison with Residents, Domain-Specific Evaluation, and Parameter Scaling.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Article
- GPT-4 outperforms junior expert physical therapists in sports medicine rehabilitation: an evaluation of AI response quality and adaptiveness.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
- Assessing the Quality and Accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 Responses to Patient Questions About Hip Arthroscopy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Observational
- The assessment of ChatGPT-4's performance compared to expert's consensus on chronic lateral ankle instability.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Development of a novel artificial intelligence clinical decision support tool for hand surgery: HandRAG.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
- The Integration of AI into the Nursing Process: A Comparative Analysis of NANDA, NOC, and NIC-Based Care Plans.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Article
- The Rise of Artificial Intelligence in Orthopedics: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- ChatGPT can yield valuable responses in the context of orthopaedic trauma surgery.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the possibility of using Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) specifically in the context of orthopaedic trauma surgery by questions posed to ChatGPT and to evaluate responses (correctness, completeness and adaptiveness) by orthopaedic trauma surgeons. Methods: ChatGPT (GPT-4 of 12 May 2023) was asked to address 34 common orthopaedic trauma surgery-related questions and generate responses suited to three target groups: patient, nonorthopaedic medical doctor and expert orthopaedic surgeon. Three orthopaedic trauma surgeons independently assessed ChatGPT's responses by using a three-point response scale with a response range between 0 and 2, where a higher number indicates better performance (correctness, completeness and adaptiveness). Results: A total of 18 (52.9%) of all responses were assessed to be correct (2.0) for the patient target group, while 22 (64.7%) and 24 (70.5%) of the responses were determined to be correct for nonorthopaedic medical doctors and expert orthopaedic surgeons, respectively. Moreover, a total of 18 (52.9%), 25 (73.5%) and 28 (82.4%) of the responses were assessed to be complete (2.0) for patients, nonorthopaedic medical doctors and expert orthopaedic surgeons, respectively. The average adaptiveness was 1.93, 1.95 and 1.97 for patients, nonorthopaedic medical doctors and expert orthopaedic surgeons, respectively. Conclusion: The study results indicate that ChatGPT can yield valuable and overall correct responses in the context of orthopaedic trauma surgery across different target groups, which encompassed patients, nonorthopaedic medical surgeons and expert orthopaedic surgeons. The average correctness scores, completeness levels and adaptiveness values indicated the ability of ChatGPT to generate overall correct and complete responses adapted to the target group. Level of Evidence: Not applicable.
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.