ArticlePhysical therapy2025
Evaluating the Potential of Large Language Models for Vestibular Rehabilitation Education: A Comparison of ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Clinicians.
Article in Physical therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative AI and Large Language Models in Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence advancements for orthopaedic clinical reasoning: longitudinal assessment of newer models (ChatGPT-5, Grok-3, Gemini 2.5 Flash) compared to clinicians.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Physical Therapy: A Narrative Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications Across the Patient and Client Management Model.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Perspectives of audiologists in China on artificial intelligence in clinical practice and professional identity: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-generated rehabilitation programs in sports physiotherapy: an expert evaluation and a mixed-methods study of clinical applicability.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Models for Dysphonia Patient Education.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence Large Language Models in Personalized Rehabilitation Programs for Knee Osteoarthritis: An Observational Study.Journal of medical systems · 2025Observational
- Author Response to Kleebayoon and Wiwanitkit.Physical therapy · 2025Article
- Evaluating the role of ChatGPT in rehabilitation medicine: a narrative review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the performance of 2 large language models, ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) and Google Gemini, against experienced physical therapists and students in responding to multiple-choice questions related to vestibular rehabilitation. The study further aimed to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses by board-certified otoneurologists.
methodsThis study was conducted among 30 physical therapist professionals experienced with vestibular rehabilitation and 30 physical therapist students. They were asked to complete a vestibular knowledge test (VKT) consisting of 20 multiple-choice questions that were divided into 3 categories: (1) Clinical Knowledge, (2) Basic Clinical Practice, and (3) Clinical Reasoning. ChatGPT and Google Gemini were tasked with answering the same 20 VKT questions. Three board-certified otoneurologists independently evaluated the accuracy of each response using a 4-level scale, ranging from comprehensive to completely incorrect.
resultsChatGPT outperformed Google Gemini with a 70% score on the VKT test, while Gemini scored 60%. Both excelled in Clinical Knowledge scoring 100% but struggled in Clinical Reasoning with ChatGPT scoring 50% and Gemini scoring 25%. According to 3 otoneurologic experts, ChatGPT's accuracy was considered "comprehensive" in 45% of the 20 questions, while 25% were found to be completely incorrect. ChatGPT provided "comprehensive" responses in 50% of Clinical Knowledge and Basic Clinical Practice questions, but only 25% in Clinical Reasoning.
conclusionCaution is advised when using ChatGPT and Google Gemini due to their limited accuracy in clinical reasoning. While they provide accurate responses concerning Clinical Knowledge, their reliance on web information may lead to inconsistencies. ChatGPT performed better than Gemini. Health care professionals should carefully formulate questions and be aware of the potential influence of the online prevalence of information on ChatGPT's and Google Gemini's responses. Combining clinical expertise and clinical guidelines with ChatGPT and Google Gemini can maximize benefits while mitigating limitations. The results are based on current models of ChatGPT3.5 and Google Gemini. Future iterations of these models are expected to offer improved accuracy as the underlying modeling and algorithms are further refined. IMPACT: This study highlights the potential utility of large language models like ChatGPT in supplementing clinical knowledge for physical therapists, while underscoring the need for caution in domains requiring complex clinical reasoning. The findings emphasize the importance of integrating technological tools carefully with human expertise to enhance patient care and rehabilitation outcomes.
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.