Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40433583›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America2025

ChatGPT and Google Gemini are Clinically Inadequate in Providing Recommendations on Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Compared to American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Patrick P Nian, Amith Umesh, Ruth H Jones, Akshitha Adhiyaman, Christopher J Williams, Christine M Goodbody, Jessica H Heyer, Shevaun M Doyle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Patrick P NianHospital for Special Surgery, New York City, NY, USA.
Amith UmeshHospital for Special Surgery, New York City, NY, USA.
Ruth H JonesHospital for Special Surgery, New York City, NY, USA.
Akshitha AdhiyamanHospital for Special Surgery, New York City, NY, USA.
Christopher J WilliamsHospital for Special Surgery, New York City, NY, USA.
Christine M GoodbodyChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jessica H HeyerHospital for Special Surgery, New York City, NY, USA.
Shevaun M DoyleHospital for Special Surgery, New York City, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Large language models, including Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) and Google Gemini have accelerated public accessibility to information, but their accuracy to medical questions remains unknown. In pediatric orthopaedics, no study has utilized board-certified expert opinion to evaluate the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots compared to evidence-based recommendations, including the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guidelines (AAOS CPGs). The aims of this study were to compare responses by ChatGPT-4.0, ChatGPT-3.5, and Google Gemini with AAOS CPG recommendations on developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) regarding accuracy, supplementary and incomplete response patterns, and readability. Methods: ChatGPT-4.0, ChatGPT-3.5, and Google Gemini were prompted by questions created from 9 evidence-based recommendations from the 2022 AAOS CPG on DDH. The answers to these questions were obtained on July 1st, 2024. Responses were anonymized and independently evaluated by two pediatric orthopaedic attending surgeons. Supplementary responses were additionally evaluated on whether no, some, or many modifications were necessary. Readability metrics (response length, Flesch-Kincaid reading level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog Index) were compared. Cohen's Kappa inter-rater reliability (κ) was calculated. Chi-square analyses and single-factor analysis of variance were utilized to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Statistical significance was set with Results: ChatGPT-4.0, ChatGPT-3.5, and Google Gemini were accurate in 5/9, 6/9, 6/9, supplementary in 8/9, 7/9, 9/9, and incomplete in 7/9, 6/9, 7/9 recommendations, respectively. Of 24 supplementary responses, 5 (20.8%), 16 (66.7%), and 3 (12.5%) required no, some, and many modifications, respectively. There were no significant differences in accuracy ( Conclusions: In the setting of DDH, AI chatbots demonstrated limited accuracy, high supplementary and incomplete response patterns, and complex readability. Pediatric orthopaedic surgeons can counsel patients and their families to set appropriate expectations on the utility of these novel tools. Key Concepts: (1)Responses by ChatGPT-4.0, ChatGPT-3.5, and Google Gemini were inadequately accurate, frequently provided supplementary information that required modifications ​and frequently lacked essential details from the AAOS CPGs on DDH.(2)Accurate, supplementary, and incomplete response patterns were not significantly different among the three chatbots.(3)Google Gemini provided responses that had the highest readability among the three chatbots.(4)Pediatric orthopaedic surgeons can play a role in counseling patients and their families on the limited utility of AI chatbots for patient education purposes. Level of Evidence: IV.

Indexed as

American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsChatGPTClinical practice guidelineDevelopmental dysplasia of the hipGoogle Gemini

Identifiers

PMID40433583
PMCPMC12088106

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.