ArticleArchives of rheumatology2025
Artificial intelligence-generated responses to frequently asked questions on coccydynia: Evaluating the accuracy and consistency of GPT-4o's performance.
Article in Archives of rheumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the accuracy and consistency of responses from Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer in human papillomavirus infection and protection.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok on familial mediterranean fever: are they trustworthy?Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Multimodal reasoning agent for enhanced ophthalmic decision-making: a preliminary real-world clinical validation.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to assess whether GPT-4o's responses to patient-centered frequently asked questions about coccydynia are accurate and consistent when asked at different times and from different accounts. Materials and methods: Questions were collected from medical websites, forums, and patient support groups and posed to GPT-4o. The responses were evaluated by two physiatrists for accuracy and consistency. Responses were categorized: Results: Of the 81 responses, 45.7% were rated as correct and comprehensive, while 49.4% were correct but incomplete. Only 4.9% of the responses contained partially incorrect information, and no responses were completely incorrect. The interreviewer agreement was substantial (kappa=0.67), but 75% of the responses differed between the two rounds. Notably, 34.9% of initially incomplete answers improved in the second round. Conclusion: GPT-4o shows promise in providing accurate and generally reliable information about coccydynia. However, the variability observed in response consistency across repeated queries suggests that while the model is useful for patient education and general inquiries, it may not be suitable for providing specialized clinical knowledge without human oversight.
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.