ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2025
ChatGPT-3.5 and -4.0 Do Not Reliably Create Readable Patient Education Materials for Common Orthopaedic Upper- and Lower-Extremity Conditions.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating ChatGPT's Role in Patient Education on Distraction Osteogenesis for Limb Lengthening.Cureus · 2026Article
- Comparison of three large language models in postoperative rehabilitation question answering after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction based on expert ratings.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Evaluation of surgical recommendation algorithms in hallux valgus cases using ChatGPT models: an artificial intelligence approach based on 50 simulated scenarios.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2026Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5 responses to patient-centered questions on stromal vascular fraction for knee osteoarthritis: fair to good quality and content.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Chatbots versus retina specialists in answering real-world retina questions.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- Effects of education level on natural language processing in cardiovascular health communication.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- A Study of Orthopedic Patient Leaflets and Readability of AI-Generated Text in Foot and Ankle Surgery (SOLE-AI).Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate whether ChatGPT-3.5 and -4.0 can serve as a viable tool to create readable patient education materials for patients with common orthopaedic upper- and lower-extremity conditions. Methods: Using ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0, we asked the artificial intelligence program a series of 2 questions pertaining to patient education for 50 common orthopaedic upper-extremity pathologies and 50 common orthopaedic lower-extremity pathologies. Two templated questions were created and used for all conditions. Readability scores were calculated using the Python library Textstat. Multiple readability test scores were generated, and a consensus reading level was created taking into account the results of 8 reading tests. Results: ChatGPT-3.5 produced only 2% and 4% of responses at the appropriate reading level for upper- and lower-extremity conditions, respectively, compared with 54% produced by ChatGPT-4.0 for both upper- and lower-extremity conditions (both Conclusions: Our results indicate that ChatGPT-3.5 and -4.0 unreliably created readable patient education materials for common orthopaedic upper- and lower-extremity conditions at the time of the study. Clinical Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that ChatGPT, while constantly improving as evidenced by the advances from version 3.5 to version 4.0, should not be substituted for traditional methods of patient education at this time and, in its current state, may be used as a supplemental resource at the discretion of providers.
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.