Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40385687›Full record

ArticleAnnals of joint2025

Evaluating retrieval augmented generation and ChatGPT's accuracy on orthopaedic examination assessment questions.

Jordan Eskenazi, Varun Krishnan, Maximilian Konarzewski, David Constantinescu, Gilberto Lobaton, Seth D Dodds

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Jordan EskenaziUniversity of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9465-9401
Varun KrishnanUniversity of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami FL, USA.
Maximilian KonarzewskiUniversity of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami FL, USA.
David ConstantinescuDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Gilberto LobatonDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Seth D DoddsDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceorthopaedicsresident educationretrieval augmented generation (RAG)

Identifiers

PMID40385687
PMCPMC12082174

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.