ArticleJournal of hand and microsurgery2025
ChatGPT 4.0's efficacy in the self-diagnosis of non-traumatic hand conditions.
Article in Journal of hand and microsurgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Chat-GPT 5.2 by Patients Affected by Rotator Cuff Tears Leads to Inaccurate Diagnosis and Treatment Suggestions: A Study by SICSeG (Italian Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Is AI an advanced intelligence, artificial intelligence, or annoying intelligence in hand and microsurgery?Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
- Advancing emergency upper extremity care: A pilot study of ChatGPT's potential role in diagnosing and managing hand and wrist trauma.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
- Integrating artificial intelligence into orthopedics: Opportunities, challenges, and future directions.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Review
- ChatGPT 4.0's efficacy in the self-diagnosis of non-traumatic hand conditions: Correspondence.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
- 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
Background: With advancements in artificial intelligence, patients increasingly turn to generative AI models like ChatGPT for medical advice. This study explores the utility of ChatGPT 4.0 (GPT-4.0), the most recent version of ChatGPT, as an interim diagnostician for common hand conditions. Secondarily, the study evaluates the terminology GPT-4.0 associates with each condition by assessing its ability to generate condition-specific questions from a patient's perspective. Methods: Five common hand conditions were identified: trigger finger (TF), Dupuytren's Contracture (DC), carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), de Quervain's tenosynovitis (DQT), and thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis (CMC). GPT-4.0 was queried with author-generated questions. The frequency of correct diagnoses, differential diagnoses, and recommendations were recorded. Chi-squared and pairwise Fisher's exact tests were used to compare response accuracy between conditions. GPT-4.0 was prompted to produce its own questions. Common terms in responses were recorded. Results: GPT-4.0's diagnostic accuracy significantly differed between conditions (p < 0.005). While GPT-4.0 diagnosed CTS, TF, DQT, and DC with >95 % accuracy, 60 % (n = 15) of CMC queries were correctly diagnosed. Additionally, there were significant differences in providing of differential diagnoses (p < 0.005), diagnostic tests (p < 0.005), and risk factors (p < 0.05). GPT-4.0 recommended visiting a healthcare provider for 97 % (n = 121) of the questions. Analysis of ChatGPT-generated questions showed four of the ten most used terms were shared between DQT and CMC. Conclusions: The results suggest that GPT-4.0 has potential preliminary diagnostic utility. Future studies should further investigate factors that improve or worsen AI's diagnostic power and consider the implications of patient utilization.
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.