ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Assessing the Validity, Safety, and Utility of ChatGPT's Responses for Patients with Frozen Shoulder.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models show high clinical safety but differences in completeness for reproductive counselling in women with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a comparative expert evaluation.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in personalized rehabilitation: current applications and a SWOT analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Evaluating the usefulness of ChatGPT and Gemini in generating educational content for patients with vitiligo: a comparative cross-sectional study.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)Article
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
This study evaluates the potential of ChatGPT as a tool for providing information to patients with frozen shoulder, focusing on its validity, utility, and safety. Five experienced physicians selected fourteen key questions on musculoskeletal disorders after discussion and verified their adequacy by consulting one hundred and twenty frozen shoulder patients for additional or alternative inquiries. These questions were input into ChatGPT version 4.0, and its responses were assessed by the physicians using a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 (least favorable) to 5 (most favorable) in terms of validity, safety, and utility. The findings showed that for validity, 85.7% of the responses scored 5, and 14.3% scored 4. For safety, 92.9% received a score of 5, while one response received a 4. Utility ratings also demonstrated high scores, with 85.7% of responses rated 5 and 14.3% rated 4. These results indicate that ChatGPT provides generally valid, safe, and useful information for patients with frozen shoulder. However, users should be aware of potential gaps or inaccuracies, and continued updates are necessary to ensure reliable and accurate guidance. It should not be considered a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, highlighting the need for continued updates to ensure reliable and accurate guidance.
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.