Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39844276›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025

Assessing the clinical support capabilities of ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini in managing lumbar disc herniation.

Suning Wang, Ying Wang, Linlin Jiang, Yong Chang, Shiji Zhang, Kun Zhao, Lu Chen, Chunzheng Gao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

8 authors.

Suning Wang *Department of Orthopedics, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Shandong University, Jinan, 250000, China.
Ying WangShandong University, NO 44, Wenhuaxi Road, Jinan, 250012, China.
Linlin JiangDepartment of Orthopedics, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, China.
Yong ChangDepartment of Orthopedics, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, China.
Shiji ZhangDepartment of Orthopedics, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, China.
Kun ZhaoDepartment of Orthopedics, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Shandong University, Jinan, 250000, China. zhaokun0227@163.com.
Lu ChenDepartment of Orthopedics, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Shandong University, Jinan, 250000, China. 793428124@qq.com.
Chunzheng GaoDepartment of Orthopedics, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Shandong University, Jinan, 250000, China. gaochunzheng1964@sina.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Intervertebral Disc DisplacementLumbar VertebraeAdultFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsArtificial intelligenceChatGPTClinical guidelinesLumbar disc herniationSpine

Identifiers

PMID39844276
PMCPMC11753088

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.