ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2025
A comparative analysis between ChatGPT versus NASS clinical guidelines for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating reasoning-tuned large language models for clinical decision-making in spine surgery.Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Low Back Pain: a Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Isthmic spondylolisthesis is a prevalent condition often diagnosed in adults, especially those with low back pain. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical viability of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 by assessing its capacity to produce recommendations consistent with NASS's Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Methods: To achieve the purpose of this study, we used the 2014 NASS Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline for Multidisciplinary Spine Care and presented its 31 questions to ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0 separately, evaluating their responses for appropriateness and consistency with the guidelines. Results: ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0 demonstrated concordance rates with the NASS guidelines of 45% and 42%, respectively, with ChatGPT 3.5 showing higher accuracy (91%) for questions with definitive recommendations and both versions showing lower concordance (20%) for questions with no direct recommendations. Conclusions: Future enhancements should focus on enabling ChatGPT to better reflect the latest evidence and clinical complexities, especially concerning issues that involve medical terms.
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.