ArticleSpine deformity2025
Is the information provided by large language models valid in educating patients about adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? An evaluation of content, clarity, and empathy : The perspective of the European Spine Study Group.
Article in Spine deformity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- From Algorithms to Clinics: Recent Progress in AI for Scoliosis Diagnosis and Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of responses from google and large language models to the top frequently asked questions on lumbar spinal stenosis: an evaluation of accuracy and completeness.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Large language models in spine care and research.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Review
- Performance of GPT-4o and Claude in Medical Ethics Scenarios: Comparative Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Publicly Accessible Large Language Model Responses to Frequently Asked Questions About Spondylodiscitis: Preliminary Expert Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Scoping review: artificial intelligence in patient education for scoliosis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Review
- An expert-led benchmark using common patient questions: evaluating large language models for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis education.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- ChatGPT in Orthopedic Trauma: Consistency, Accuracy, and Agreement With Textbook and Expert Opinion.Cureus · 2026Article
- A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Mapping and optimization of a patient-centred care pathway for treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Advent of Artificial Intelligence in Spine Research: An Updated Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the readability and quality of AI-generated scoliosis education materials: a comparative analysis of five language models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Current trends and future prospects of language models and processing systems in spine surgery - a scoping review.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Clinical Applications, Challenges & Pitfalls, and Recommendations for Large Language Model and Generative AI in Musculoskeletal Imaging.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
- Clinical Failure of General-Purpose AI in Photographic Scoliosis Assessment: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Assessing the role of large language models in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis care: a comparison between ChatGPT and Google Gemini.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2025Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence Large Language Models in Personalized Rehabilitation Programs for Knee Osteoarthritis: An Observational Study.Journal of medical systems · 2025Observational
- ChatGPT and Google Gemini are Clinically Inadequate in Providing Recommendations on Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Compared to American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLarge language models (LLM) have the potential to bridge knowledge gaps in patient education and enrich patient-surgeon interactions. This study evaluated three chatbots for delivering empathetic and precise adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) related information and management advice. Specifically, we assessed the accuracy, clarity, and relevance of the information provided, aiming to determine the effectiveness of LLMs in addressing common patient queries and enhancing their understanding of AIS.
methodsWe sourced 20 webpages for the top frequently asked questions (FAQs) about AIS and formulated 10 critical questions based on them. Three advanced LLMs-ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Google Bard-were selected to answer these questions, with responses limited to 200 words. The LLMs' responses were evaluated by a blinded group of experienced deformity surgeons (members of the European Spine Study Group) from seven European spine centers. A pre-established 4-level rating system from excellent to unsatisfactory was used with a further rating for clarity, comprehensiveness, and empathy on the 5-point Likert scale. If not rated 'excellent', the raters were asked to report the reasons for their decision for each question. Lastly, raters were asked for their opinion towards AI in healthcare in general in six questions.
resultsThe responses among all LLMs were 'excellent' in 26% of responses, with ChatGPT-4.0 leading (39%), followed by Bard (17%). ChatGPT-4.0 was rated superior to Bard and ChatGPT 3.5 (p = 0.003). Discrepancies among raters were significant (p < 0.0001), questioning inter-rater reliability. No substantial differences were noted in answer distribution by question (p = 0.43). The answers on diagnosis (Q2) and causes (Q4) of AIS were top-rated. The most dissatisfaction was seen in the answers regarding definitions (Q1) and long-term results (Q7). Exhaustiveness, clarity, empathy, and length of the answers were positively rated (> 3.0 on 5.0) and did not demonstrate any differences among LLMs. However, GPT-3.5 struggled with language suitability and empathy, while Bard's responses were overly detailed and less empathetic. Overall, raters found that 9% of answers were off-topic and 22% contained clear mistakes.
conclusionOur study offers crucial insights into the strengths and weaknesses of current LLMs in AIS patient and parent education, highlighting the promise of advancements like ChatGPT-4.o and Gemini alongside the need for continuous improvement in empathy, contextual understanding, and language appropriateness.
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.