ArticleCureus2025
Assessing the Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in the Diagnosis and Management of Meniscal Tears.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have emerged as readily accessible tools for providing medical information to the public. However, the accuracy of AI chatbot responses, particularly in specialized medical fields such as orthopaedic surgery, remains largely understudied.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the accuracy of responses from two prominent free AI chatbots when posed with frequent questions about meniscus tears, a common orthopaedic injury.
methodsThe two AI chatbots assessed in this study were ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash. The analysis focused on the number of statements provided by each chatbot and the percentage of verifiable statements based on UpToDate alone, as well as UpToDate combined with peer-reviewed articles as of March 2025.
resultsThe results showed no statistically significant difference in the average number of statements generated per question between the two AI chatbots. ChatGPT-4o provided an average of 18.25 statements per question, while Gemini 2.0 Flash generated 19.50 statements per question (p>0.05). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the percentage of verifiable statements provided by each AI chatbot. ChatGPT-4o achieved 58.22% verifiable statements compared to Gemini 2.0 Flash's 58.97% when using UpToDate as the sole verification source, and 83.56% versus 84.62%, respectively, when incorporating both UpToDate and peer-reviewed articles as verification sources (p>0.05). However, a statistically significant difference in the percentage of verifiable statements was observed based on the verification source used. UpToDate alone resulted in 58.61% of verifiable statements, while combining UpToDate and peer-reviewed articles increased this percentage to 84.11% (p<0.0001).
conclusionOverall, the results of this study suggest that there are minimal differences between free AI chatbots in providing orthopaedic medical information. The results also emphasize the importance of utilizing broader verification sources to enhance the accuracy of AI-generated statements. The study indicates that AI chatbots have clinical limitations in their accuracy and understanding of specific orthopaedic conditions. The authors suggest that although AI chatbots can contribute to orthopaedic care and patient education, they are not capable of replacing the clinical judgment or expertise of orthopaedic surgeons.
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.