ArticleEplasty2025
Artificial Intelligence in Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery Education: Accuracy and Validity of ChatGPT-4o Versus UpToDate as a Learning Tool for Trainees.
Article in Eplasty, 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
Background: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical education has risen rapidly. Trainees can ask ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI) clinical questions and receive management recommendations. Previous studies have assessed the accuracy of ChatGPT, but none have examined hand and upper extremity surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT-4o compared to UpToDate (Wolters Kluwer) and categorize the validity of sources provided by ChatGPT-4o. Methods: Five hand and upper extremity surgery cases were entered into ChatGPT-4o. An UpToDate article was selected for each case. Two hand surgeons and 5 medical students completed a survey comparing the resources. Resources were rated on a scale from 1 to 3, with 1 indicating incomplete information and not useful; 2 indicating semi-complete information and somewhat useful; and 3 indicating a complete answer and useful for management. ChatGPT-4o references were scored on a validity scale of 0 to 2. Results: Hand and upper extremity surgeons rated ChatGPT-4o and UpToDate as semi-complete and somewhat useful, with median scores of 2.00 and 2.50, respectively. No significant differences were found between resources. Medical students found ChatGPT to provide semi-complete information and be somewhat useful overall, and rated UpToDate more often as providing a complete answer and being useful. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the resource ratings. Of the 25 references provided by ChatGPT, 28% were accurate, 6% were somewhat accurate, and 66% were inaccurate. Conclusions: The findings indicate overall comparable perceived usefulness of ChatGPT-4o and UpToDate by hand/upper extremity surgeons and trainees. ChatGPT-4o holds promise as an educational tool; however, accuracy concerns remain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40661100PMC12257968What 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.