ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
High accuracy but limited readability of large language model-generated responses to frequently asked questions about Kienböck's disease.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Cross-platform evaluation of LLM-generated educational texts on cardiac myxoma: quality, readability, and actionability using network analysis and latent profile analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Feasibility and exploratory assessment of large language models for pediatric dentistry queries: a comparative study.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Appropriateness of Thyroid Nodule Cancer Risk Assessment and Management Recommendations Provided by Large Language Models.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the quality and readability of large language model-generated responses to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about Kienböck's disease (KD).
methodsNineteen FAQs about KD were selected, and the questions were divided into three categories: general knowledge, diagnosis, and treatment. The questions were inputted into the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (ChatGPT4) webpage using the zero-shot prompting method, and the responses were recorded. Hand surgeons with at least 5 years of experience and advanced English proficiency were individually contacted over instant WhatsApp messaging and requested to assess the responses. The quality of each response was analyzed by 33 experienced hand surgeons using the Global Quality Scale (GQS). The readability was assessed with the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES).
resultsThe mean GQS score was 4.28 out of a maximum of 5 points. Most raters assessed the quality as good (270 of 627 responses; 43.1%) or excellent (260 of 627 responses; 41.5%). The mean FKGL was 15.5, and the mean FRES was 23.4, both of which are considered above the college graduate level. No statistically significant differences were found in the quality and readability of responses provided for questions related to general knowledge, diagnosis, and treatment.
conclusionsChatGPT-4 provided high-quality responses to FAQs about KD. However, the primary drawback was the poor readability of these responses. By improving the readability of ChatGPT's output, we can transform it into a valuable information resource for individuals with KD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Observational 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.