ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
The assessment of ChatGPT-4's performance compared to expert's consensus on chronic lateral ankle instability.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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 assessment of ChatGPT-4's performance compared to expert's consensus on chronic lateral ankle instability.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
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
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of answers to clinical questions on the surgical treatment of chronic lateral ankle instability (CLAI) using ChatGPT-4 as a reference for consensus statements developed by the ESSKA-AFAS Ankle Instability Group (AIG). This study simulated the clinical settings where non-expert clinicians treat patients with CLAI. Methods: The large language model (LLM) ChatGPT-4 was used on 10 February 2025 to answer a total of 17 questions regarding the surgical management of CLAI that were developed by the ESSKA-AFAS AIG. The ChatGPT responses were compared with the consensus statements developed by ESSKA-AFAS AIG. The consistency and accuracy of the answers by ChatGPT as a reference for the experts' answers were evaluated. The consistency of ChatGPT's answers to the consensus statements was assessed by the question, 'Is the answer by ChatGPT agreement with those by the experts? (Yes or No)'. Four scoring categories: Accuracy, Overconclusiveness (proposed recommendation despite the lack of consensus), Supplementary (additional information not covered by the consensus statement), and Incompleteness, were used to evaluate the quality of ChatGPT's answers. Results: Of the 17 questions on the surgical management of CLAI, 11 answers (64.7%) were agreement with the consensus statements by the experts. The percentages of ChatGPT's answers that were considered 'Yes' in the Accuracy and Supplementary were 64.7% (11/17) and 70.6% (12/17), respectively. The percentages of ChatGPT's answers that were considered "No" in the Overconclusiveness and Incompleteness were 76.5% (13/17) and 88.2% (15/17), respectively. Conclusion: The present study showed that ChatGPT-4 could not provide answers to queries on the surgical management of CLAI, such as foot and ankle experts. However, ChatGPT also showed its promising potential for its application when managing patients with CLAI. Level of Evidence: Level Ⅳ.
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.