Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40041831›Full record

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.

Ryan S Marder, George Abdelmalek, Sean M Richards, Nicolas J Nadeau, Daniel J Garcia, Peter J Attia, Gavin Rallis, Anthony J Scillia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Chatbots versus retina specialists in answering real-world retina questions.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025
    Article
  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

8 authors.

Ryan S MarderSt. Joseph's University Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey, U.S.A.
George AbdelmalekSt. Joseph's University Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Sean M RichardsHackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Nicolas J NadeauHackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Daniel J GarciaRutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Peter J AttiaRutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Gavin RallisSt. Joseph's University Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Anthony J ScilliaSt. Joseph's University Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey, U.S.A.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID40041831
PMCPMC11873497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.