ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Is it a pediatric orthopaedic urgency or not? Can ChatGPT answer this question?
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, is increasingly studied in healthcare. This study evaluated the accuracy and reliability of the ChatGPT in guiding families on whether pediatric orthopaedic symptoms warrant emergency or outpatient care.
methodsFive common pediatric orthopaedic scenarios were developed, and ChatGPT was queried via a family-like language. For each scenario, two questions were asked: an initial general query and a follow-up query regarding the need for emergency versus outpatient care. ChatGPT's responses were evaluated for accuracy by analysing medical literature and online materials, completeness, and conciseness by two independent pediatric orthopaedic consultants, using a modified Likert scale. Responses were classified from "perfect" to "poor" based on total scores.
resultsChatGPT responded to 5 different scenarios commonly encountered in pediatric orthopaedics. The scores ranged from 8 to 10, with most responses requiring minimal clarification. While ChatGPT demonstrated strong diagnostic reasoning and actionable advice, occasional inaccuracies, such as recommending elevation for SCFE, highlighted areas for improvement.
conclusionChatGPT demonstrates potential as a supplemental tool for patient education and triage in pediatric orthopaedics, with generally accurate and accessible responses. These findings echo prior research on ChatGPT's potential and challenges in orthopaedics, emphasizing its role as a supplemental, not standalone, resource. While its strengths in providing accurate and accessible advice are evident, its limitations necessitate further refinement and cautious use under human supervision. Continued advancements in AI may further improve its safe integration into clinical care in pediartic orthopaedics.
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.