ArticleAnnals of joint2025
Evaluating retrieval augmented generation and ChatGPT's accuracy on orthopaedic examination assessment questions.
Article in Annals of joint, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human medical documentation significantly outperforms ChatGPT-4o in critical clinical dimensions: A blinded comparative assessment in paediatric orthopaedics.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Trial
- The application of large language models in orthopedic postgraduate education: potentials, challenges, and future prospects.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
- Performance Evaluation of Large Language Models With Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Cardiology Specialist Examinations in Japan.Circulation reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Since the introduction of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, there has been a race to test its capability in medical problem solving across specialties to varying degrees of success. Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) allows LLMs to leverage subject specific knowledge to provide context, a greater number of sources, and the ability to cite medical literature to increase the accuracy and credibility of its answers. The use of LLM + RAG has not yet been used in the appraisal of artificial intelligence's capability of orthopedic problem solving. The purpose of this study is to assess the performance of ChatGPT + RAG against the performance of ChatGPT without RAG as well as against humans on orthopedic examination assessment questions. Methods: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) OrthoWizard question bank was used as the source of questions. After 13 textbooks and 28 clinical guidelines were made available for RAG, text-only multiple-choice questions were presented in a zero-shot learning fashion to ChatGPT-4 + RAG, ChatGPT-4, and ChatGPT-3.5. Results: On 1,023 questions tested, ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4+RAG, and humans scored 52.98%, 64.91%, 73.80%, and 73.97%, respectively. There was no statistical difference between orthopedic surgeons and ChatGPT-4 + RAG on overall accuracy (P>0.99). Both orthopedic surgeons and ChatGPT4 + RAG scored better than ChatGPT-4 (P<0.001) and ChatGPT-3.5 (P<0.001). Of the 13 textbooks available to RAG, RAG used AAOS Comprehensive Review 3 Volume 3 for 39.6% of questions, more often than any other resource available to it. Conclusions: ChatGPT-4 + RAG was able to answer 1,023 questions from the OrthoWizard question bank at the same accuracy as Orthopedic surgeons. Both ChatGPT-4 + RAG and orthopedic surgeons had superior accuracy on these specialty exam questions compared to ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5. Artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly accurate in its ability to answer orthopaedic surgery test questions with the guidance of orthopaedic surgery textbooks. RAG enables an LLM to effectively cite its sources after providing an answer to a question, which is an important tool for the integration of LLMs to orthopaedic surgery education and can function as a valuable tool for anyone studying for an orthopedic examination.
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.