Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40182256›Full record

ArticleJSES international2025

Can popular AI large language models provide reliable answers to frequently asked questions about rotator cuff tears?

Ulas Can Kolac, Orhan Mete Karademir, Gokhan Ayik, Mehmet Kaymakoglu, Filippo Familiari, Gazi Huri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JSES international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. An expert-based assessment of the quality, reliability, understandability, and readability of ChatGPT responses on cerebral palsy.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. 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.

Ulas Can KolacDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Orhan Mete KarademirFaculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Gokhan AyikDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Yuksek Ihtisas University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Mehmet KaymakogluDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Izmir University of Economics, Izmir, Turkey.
Filippo FamiliariDepartment of Orthopaedics, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Italy, Catanzaro, Italy.
Gazi HuriDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Rotator cuff tears are common upper-extremity injuries that significantly impair shoulder function, leading to pain, reduced range of motion, and a decrease in quality of life. With the increasing reliance on artificial intelligence large language models (AI LLMs) for health information, it is crucial to evaluate the quality and readability of the information provided by these models. Methods: A pool of 50 questions was generated related to rotator cuff tear by querying popular AI LLMs (ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4, Gemini, and Microsoft CoPilot) and using Google search. After that, responses from the AI LLMs were saved and evaluated. For information quality the DISCERN tool and a Likert Scale was used, for readability the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials (PEMAT) Understandability Score and the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score was used. Two orthopedic surgeons assessed the responses, and discrepancies were resolved by a senior author. Results: Out of 198 answers, the median DISCERN score was 40, with 56.6% considered sufficient. The Likert Scale showed 96% sufficiency. The median PEMAT Understandability score was 83.33, with 77.3% sufficiency, while the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score had a median of 42.05 with 88.9% sufficiency. Overall, 39.8% of the answers were sufficient in both information quality and readability. Differences were found among AI models in DISCERN, Likert, PEMAT Understandability, and Flesch-Kincaid scores. Conclusion: AI LLMs generally cannot offer sufficient information quality and readability. While they are not ready for use in medical field, they show a promising future. There is a necessity for continuous re-evaluation of these models due to their rapid evolution. Developing new, comprehensive tools for evaluating medical information quality and readability is crucial for ensuring these models can effectively support patient education. Future research should focus on enhancing readability and consistent information quality to better serve patients.

Indexed as

AI Tools in HealthcareArtificial intelligenceChatGPTFrequently asked questionsLarge language modelsPatient informationRotator cuff tears

Identifiers

PMID40182256
PMCPMC11962600

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.