ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2025
Are Large Language Model-Based Chatbots Effective in Providing Reliable Medical Advice for Achilles Tendinopathy? An International Multispecialist Evaluation.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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.
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The assessment of ChatGPT-4's performance compared to expert's consensus on chronic lateral ankle instability.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language model (LLM)-based chatbots have shown potential in providing health information and patient education. However, the reliability of these chatbots in offering medical advice for specific conditions like Achilles tendinopathy remains uncertain. Mixed outcomes in the field of orthopaedics highlight the need for further examination of these chatbots' reliability. Hypothesis: Three leading LLM-based chatbots can provide accurate and complete responses to inquiries related to Achilles tendinopathy. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Eighteen questions derived from the Dutch clinical guideline on Achilles tendinopathy were posed to 3 leading LLM-based chatbots: ChatGPT 4.0, Claude 2, and Gemini. The responses were incorporated into an online survey assessed by orthopaedic surgeons specializing in Achilles tendinopathy. Responses were evaluated using a 4-point scoring system, where 1 indicates unsatisfactory and 4 indicates excellent. The total scores for the 18 responses were aggregated for each rater and compared across the chatbots. The intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to assess consistency among the raters' evaluations. Results: Thirteen specialists from 9 diverse countries and regions participated. Analysis showed no significant difference in the mean total scores among the chatbots: ChatGPT (59.7 ± 5.5), Claude 2 (53.4 ± 9.7), and Gemini (53.6 ± 8.4). The proportions of unsatisfactory responses (score 1) were low and comparable across chatbots: 0.9% for ChatGPT 4.0, 3.4% for Claude 2, and 3.4% for Gemini. In terms of excellent responses (score 4), ChatGPT 4.0 outperformed the others, with 43.6% of the responses rated as excellent, significantly higher than Claude 2 at 27.4% and Gemini at 25.2% ( Conclusion: While LLM-based chatbots such as ChatGPT 4.0 can deliver high-quality responses to queries regarding Achilles tendinopathy, the inconsistency among specialist evaluations and the absence of standardized assessment criteria significantly challenge our ability to draw definitive conclusions. These issues underscore the need for a cautious and standardized approach when considering the integration of LLM-based chatbots into clinical settings.
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.