Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39600798›Full record

ReviewJB & JS open access

Exploring the Performance of ChatGPT in an Orthopaedic Setting and Its Potential Use as an Educational Tool.

Arthur Drouaud, Carolina Stocchi, Justin Tang, Grant Gonsalves, Zoe Cheung, Jan Szatkowski, David Forsh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors.

Arthur DrouaudGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2240-6875
Carolina StocchiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai, New York, New York.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5143-3754
Justin TangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai, New York, New York.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4544-3262
Grant GonsalvesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai, New York, New York.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0077-7357
Zoe CheungDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, New York.
Jan SzatkowskiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Indiana University Health Methodist Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6421-9736
David ForshDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai, New York, New York.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7346-1594

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: We assessed ChatGPT-4 vision (GPT-4V)'s performance for image interpretation, diagnosis formulation, and patient management capabilities. We aim to shed light on its potential as an educational tool addressing real-life cases for medical students. Methods: Ten of the most popular orthopaedic trauma cases from OrthoBullets were selected. GPT-4V interpreted medical imaging and patient information, providing diagnoses, and guiding responses to OrthoBullets questions. Four fellowship-trained orthopaedic trauma surgeons rated GPT-4V responses using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Each of GPT-4V's answers was assessed for alignment with current medical knowledge (accuracy), rationale and whether it is logical (rationale), relevancy to the specific case (relevance), and whether surgeons would trust the answers (trustworthiness). Mean scores from surgeon ratings were calculated. Results: In total, 10 clinical cases, comprising 97 questions, were analyzed (10 imaging, 35 management, and 52 treatment). The surgeons assigned a mean overall rating of 3.46/5.00 to GPT-4V's imaging response (accuracy 3.28, rationale 3.68, relevance 3.75, and trustworthiness 3.15). Management questions received an overall score of 3.76 (accuracy 3.61, rationale 3.84, relevance 4.01, and trustworthiness 3.58), while treatment questions had an average overall score of 4.04 (accuracy 3.99, rationale 4.08, relevance 4.15, and trustworthiness 3.93). Conclusion: This is the first study evaluating GPT-4V's imaging interpretation, personalized management, and treatment approaches as a medical educational tool. Surgeon ratings indicate overall fair agreement in GPT-4V reasoning behind decision-making. GPT-4V performed less favorably in imaging interpretation compared with its management and treatment approach performance. The performance of GPT-4V falls below our fellowship-trained orthopaedic trauma surgeon's standards as a standalone tool for medical education.

Identifiers

PMID39600798
PMCPMC11584220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.