ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Assessing the clinical support capabilities of ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini in managing lumbar disc herniation.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models in the vertical integration of spine surgery workflow: a scoping review.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
- A comparative evaluation of large language models in aligning with European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines for high-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Low Back Pain: a Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- A systematic comparison of ChatGPT and DeepSeek for guideline-based question answering in obstetric anesthesia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- BPX-Net: biomarker-preserved explainable networks for disease diagnosis and prognosis.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Guidelines vs. generative AI in CKD patient education: the role of prompt engineering and expert blinded evaluation.BMC nephrology · 2026Article
- ChatGPT models provide higher-quality but lower-readability responses than Google Gemini regarding anterior shoulder instability, with no added benefit of the orthopaedic expert plugin.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Comparative assessment of large language models in diabetic foot infection management: alignment with IWGDF/IDSA guidelines.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Revolutionizing spine surgery with emerging AI-FEA integration.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Potential of ChatGPT in youth mental health emergency triage: Comparative analysis with clinicians.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Pediatric Emergencies: A Reliable Lifeline or a Risk?Cureus · 2025Article
- Evaluating ChatGPT and DeepSeek in postdural puncture headache management: a comparative study with international consensus guidelines.BMC neurology · 2025Article
- Comparative performance of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in interpreting the 2025 ESICM guidelines on sepsis fluid therapy.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated and compared the clinical support capabilities of ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini in diagnosing and treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH) with radiculopathy.
methodsTwenty-one questions (across 5 categories) from NASS Clinical Guidelines were input into ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini. Five orthopedic surgeons assessed their responses using a 5-point Likert scale for accuracy and completeness, and a 7-point scale for reliability. Flesch Reading Ease scores were calculated to assess readability. Additionally, ChatGPT 4o analyzed lumbar images from 53 patients, comparing its recognizable agreement with orthopedic surgeons using Kappa values.
resultsBoth models demonstrated strong clinical support capabilities with no significant differences in accuracy or reliability. However, ChatGPT 4o provided more comprehensive and consistent responses. The Flesch Reading Ease scores for both models indicated that their generated content was "very difficult to read," potentially limiting patient accessibility. In evaluating lumbar disc herniation images, ChatGPT 4o achieved an overall accuracy of 0.81, with LDH recognition precision, recall, and F1 scores exceeding 0.80. The AUC was 0.80, and the Kappa value was 0.61, indicating moderate agreement between the model's predictions and actual diagnoses, though with room for improvement.
conclusionWhile both models are effective, ChatGPT 4o offers more comprehensive clinical responses, making it more suitable for high-integrity medical tasks. However, the difficulty in reading AI-generated content and occasional use of misleading terms, such as "tumor," indicate a need for further improvements to reduce patient anxiety.
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.