ArticleBMJ open2024
Quantitative evaluation of GPT-4's performance on US and Chinese osteoarthritis treatment guideline interpretation and orthopaedic case consultation.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical applications of large language models in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Construction of a conceptual model and preliminary content development for patient-reported outcomes measurement after total hip arthroplasty: from a Chinese perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Medical Diagnostics: Scoping Review With Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate GPT-4's performance in interpreting osteoarthritis (OA) treatment guidelines from the USA and China, and to assess its ability to diagnose and manage orthopaedic cases.
settingThe study was conducted using publicly available OA treatment guidelines and simulated orthopaedic case scenarios.
participantsNo human participants were involved. The evaluation focused on GPT-4's responses to clinical guidelines and case questions, assessed by two orthopaedic specialists. OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes included the accuracy and completeness of GPT-4's responses to guideline-based queries and case scenarios. Metrics included the correct match rate, completeness score and stratification of case responses into predefined tiers of correctness.
resultsIn interpreting the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and Chinese OA guidelines, GPT-4 achieved a correct match rate of 46.4% and complete agreement with all score-2 recommendations. The accuracy score for guideline interpretation was 4.3±1.6 (95% CI 3.9 to 4.7), and the completeness score was 2.8±0.6 (95% CI 2.5 to 3.1). For case-based questions, GPT-4 demonstrated high performance, with over 88% of responses rated as comprehensive.
conclusionsGPT-4 demonstrates promising capabilities as an auxiliary tool in orthopaedic clinical practice and patient education, with high levels of accuracy and completeness in guideline interpretation and clinical case analysis. However, further validation is necessary to establish its utility in real-world clinical settings.
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.