ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Enhancing responses from large language models with role-playing prompts: a comparative study on answering frequently asked questions about total knee arthroplasty.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models show distinct multidimensional performance profiles and variable reproducibility in consensus-based bone stress injury.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Large Language Model Hallucinations in Spine Surgery: A Comparative Analysis of Clinician vs Patient-Level Prompts.Neurosurgery practice · 2026Article
- Shaping AI in Pelvic Floor Physiotherapy: The Impact of Role-Play Prompting on ChatGPT Response Quality.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Evaluating the clinical decision-making performance of large language models in clinically oriented thoracic anatomy scenarios: a comparative evaluation study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary expert evaluation of large language models on questions regarding bariatric surgery: a comparative analysis of ERNIE Bot 4.0, ChatGPT-4, Claude 3 Opus, and Gemini Pro.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Large language models in sports injury care: a comparative expert evaluation of GPT-4o and GPT-5.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a large language model for clinician-facing preoperative cost-communication preparation in total knee arthroplasty.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing the information quality of AI-generated patient educational materials for diabetes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- From algorithms to operating room: can large language models master China's attending anesthesiology exam? A cross-sectional evaluation.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Surgery: Promise, Pitfalls, and Practical Use.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Review
- A platform for investigating prompt framing as interface parameters in foundation models for robotics.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Article
- Exploring AI-assisted design of executive function rehabilitation programs for individuals with ADHD: a mixed-methods evaluation of prompts and chatgpt outputs.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical education and patient interaction is rapidly growing. Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Google Gemini, and Claude 3 Opus have shown potential in providing relevant medical information. This study aims to evaluate and compare the performance of these LLMs in answering frequently asked questions (FAQs) about Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA), with a specific focus on the impact of role-playing prompts.
methodsFour leading LLMs-GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Google Gemini, and Claude 3 Opus-were evaluated using ten standardized patient inquiries related to TKA. Each model produced two distinct responses per question: one generated under zero-shot prompting (question-only), and one under role-playing prompting (instructed to simulate an experienced orthopaedic surgeon). Four orthopaedic surgeons evaluated responses for accuracy and comprehensiveness on a 5-point Likert scale, along with a binary measure for acceptability. Statistical analyses (Wilcoxon rank sum and Chi-squared tests; P < 0.05) were conducted to compare model performance.
resultsChatGPT-4 with role-playing prompts achieved the highest scores for accuracy (3.73), comprehensiveness (4.05), and acceptability (77.5%), followed closely by ChatGPT-3.5 with role-playing prompts (3.70, 3.85, 72.5%, respectively). Google Gemini and Claude 3 Opus demonstrated lower performance across all metrics. In between-model comparisons based on zero-shot prompting, ChatGPT-4 achieved significantly higher scores of both accuracy and comprehensiveness relative to Google Gemini (P = 0.031 and P = 0.009, respectively) and Claude 3 Opus (P = 0.019 and P = 0.002), and demonstrated higher acceptability than Claude 3 Opus (P = 0.006). Within-model comparisons showed role-playing significantly improved all metrics for ChatGPT-3.5 (P < 0.05) and acceptability for ChatGPT-4 (P = 0.033). No significant prompting effects were observed for Gemini or Claude.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that role-playing prompts significantly enhance the performance of LLMs, particularly for ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4, in answering FAQs related to TKA. ChatGPT-4, with role-playing prompts, showed superior performance in terms of accuracy, comprehensiveness, and acceptability. Despite occasional inaccuracies, LLMs hold promise for improving patient education and clinical decision-making in orthopaedic practice. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.