Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40018458›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Evaluating ChatGPT's Performance in Classifying Pertrochanteric Fractures Based on Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) Standards.

Mitsuaki Noda, Shunsuke Takahara, Shinya Hayashi, Atsuyuki Inui, Keisuke Oe, Takehiko Matsushita

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Diagnostic capabilities of large language models in the detection of scaphoid fractures in the emergency department.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2025
    Observational
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Mitsuaki NodaOrthopedics, Himeji Central Hospital, Himeji, JPN.
Shunsuke TakaharaOrthopedics, Hyogo Prefectural Kakogawa Medical Center, Kakogawa, JPN.
Shinya HayashiOrthopedics, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, JPN.
Atsuyuki InuiOrthopedics, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, JPN.
Keisuke OeOrthopedics, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, JPN.
Takehiko MatsushitaOrthopedics, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, JPN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Generative Pre-Training Transformer (ChatGPT) has become widely recognized for its capability to generate text, synthesize complex information, and perform a variety of tasks without requiring human specialists for data collection. The latest iteration, ChatGPT-4, is a large multimodal model capable of integrating both text and image inputs, rendering it particularly promising for medical applications. However, its efficacy in analyzing radiographic images remains largely unexplored. Aim This study aims to (i) address the lack of data on the accuracy of ChatGPT in radiographic fracture classification into stable or unstable under the revised Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) classification system, and this procedure is also performed by surgeons, and (ii) compare the agreement between surgeons or ChatGPT-based performance. The study hypothesizes that the use of ChatGPT would achieve moderate agreement with orthopedic surgeons. Materials and methods Patients diagnosed with pertrochanteric fractures were retrospectively collected. Patients with both preoperative two-directional plain radiographs and CT scans (3D-CT) images were conditioned for enrollment into the study. Two orthopedic surgeons (observer 1 and observer 2, respectively) and one resident (observer 3) were once assigned to dichotomized groups into A1 (stable) or A2 (unstable) based on AO/OTA classification using two-directional plain radiographs. Prior to the ChatGPT study, all the anteroposterior images trimmed at the fractured side, attached with figure names including gender, and age, were inputted into OpenAI ChatGPT-4. Radiological evaluation prompts were designed to initiate ChatGPT's classification analysis of the uploaded radiographic images. A single observer (MN) decided the classification patterns by examining 3D CT scan images as well as plain radiographs. This judgment of A1 (stable) and A2 (unstable) was set as a benchmark to mark the results of observers and ChatGPT based on plain radiographs. Results The cohort consisted of 29 males and 90 females, with a mean age of 87 years after the data exclusion. The fractures were classified into A1 (stable) and A2 (unstable) groups based on CT imaging. The A1 group included 50 patients (13 males, 37 females; mean age: 86.2 ± 7.8 years), while the A2 group included 69 patients (16 males, 53 females; mean age: 87.0 ± 7.9 years). Kappa values for fracture classification between plain radiographs evaluated by the three observers and ChatGPT, compared to the CT-based gold standard, showed fair to moderate agreement: Observer 1: 0.494 (95% CI: 0.337-0.650), Observer 2: 0.390 (95% CI: 0.227-0.553), Observer 3: 0.360 (95% CI: 0.198-0.521), and ChatGPT: 0.420 (95% CI: 0.255-0.585). ChatGPT demonstrated accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictable values comparable to the human observers, suggesting moderate reliability. Conclusion This study demonstrates that ChatGPT can classify pertrochanteric fractures into A1 (stable) and A2 (unstable) under the Revised AO/OTA Classification System. Its moderate agreement with CT-based assessments (κ = 0.420) is comparable to the performance of orthopedic surgeons. Moreover, ChatGPT is straightforward to integrate into clinical workflows, requiring minimal data collection for training.

Indexed as

ao/otachatgptctfracture classificationpertrochanteric fracture

Identifiers

PMID40018458
PMCPMC11865862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.