ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Utility of ChatGPT as a preparation tool for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Reasoning-optimised large language models reach near-expert accuracy on board-style orthopaedic exams: A multi-model comparison on 702 multiple-choice questions.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Utility of ChatGPT as a preparation tool for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- ChatGPT-4o is Not a Reliable Study Source for Orthopaedic Surgery Residents.JB & JS open accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) may have implications as a novel educational resource. There are differences in opinion on the best resource for the Orthopaedic In-Training Exam (OITE) as information changes from year to year. This study assesses ChatGPT's performance on the OITE for use as a potential study resource for residents. Methods: Questions for the OITE data set were sourced from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) website. All questions from the 2022 OITE were included. All questions, including those with images, were included in the analysis. The questions were formatted in the same manner as presented on the AAOS website, with the question, narrative text and answer choices separated by a line. Each question was evaluated in a new chat session to minimize confounding variables. Answers from ChatGPT were characterized by whether they contained logical, internal or external information. Incorrect responses were further categorized into logical, informational or explicit fallacies. Results: ChatGPT yielded an overall success rate of 48.3% based on the 2022 AAOS OITE. ChatGPT demonstrated the ability to apply logic and stepwise thinking in 67.6% of the questions. ChatGPT effectively utilized internal information from the question stem in 68.1% of the questions. ChatGPT also demonstrated the ability to incorporate external information in 68.1% of the questions. The utilization of logical reasoning ( Conclusions: ChatGPT demonstrates logical, informational and explicit fallacies which, at this time, may lead to misinformation and hinder resident education. Level of Evidence: Level V.
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.