Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40583928›Full record

ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025

Battle of the Bots: Solving Clinical Cases in Osteoarticular Infections With Large Language Models.

Fabio Borgonovo, Takahiro Matsuo, Francesco Petri, Seyed Mohammad Amin Alavi, Laura Chelsea Mazudie Ndjonko, Andrea Gori, Elie F Berbari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 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. Article
  2. Article
  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

7 authors.

Fabio BorgonovoDivision of Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Takahiro MatsuoDivision of Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Francesco PetriDivision of Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Seyed Mohammad Amin AlaviFaculty of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Laura Chelsea Mazudie NdjonkoNorthwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Andrea GoriDepartment of Infectious Diseases, "Luigi Sacco" University Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Elie F BerbariDivision of Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the ability of 15 different large language models (LLMs) to solve clinical cases with osteoarticular infections following published guidelines. Materials and Methods: The study evaluated 15 LLMs across 5 categories of osteoarticular infections: periprosthetic joint infection, diabetic foot infection, native vertebral osteomyelitis, fracture-related infections, and septic arthritis. Models were selected systematically, including general-purpose and medical-specific systems, ensuring robust English support. In total, 126 text-based questions, developed by the authors from published guidelines and validated by experts, assessed diagnostic, management, and treatment strategies. Each model answered individually, with responses classified as correct or incorrect based on guidelines. All tests were conducted between April 17, 2025, and April 28, 2025. Results, presented as percentages of correct answers and aggregated scores, highlight performance trends. Mixed-effects logistic regression with a random question effect was used to quantify how each LLM compared in answering the study questions. Results: The performance of 15 LLMs was evaluated, with the percentage of correct answers reported. OpenEvidence and Microsoft Copilot achieved the highest score (119/126 [94.4%]), excelling in multiple categories. ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 117 of the 126 (92.8%). When used as references, OpenEvidence was not inferior to any comparator and was superior to 5 LLMs. Performance varied across categories, highlighting the strengths and limitations of individual models. Conclusion: OpenEvidence and Miccrosoft Copilot achieved the highest accuracy among evaluated LLMs, highlighting their potential for precisely addressing complex clinical cases. This study emphasizes the need for specialized, validated artificial intelligence tools in medical practice. Although promising, current models face limitations in real-world applications, requiring further refinement to support clinical decision making reliably.

Identifiers

PMID40583928
PMCPMC12205795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.