ArticleRheumatology international2025
Referential hallucination and clinical reliability in large language models: a comparative analysis using regenerative medicine guidelines for chronic pain.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of generative artificial intelligence in chronic pain: a scoping review.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Review
- Assessment of CDASI scoring by a multimodal large language model: a comparative study with expert assessors.Rheumatology international · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared language models' responses to open-ended questions on regenerative therapy guidelines for chronic pain, assessing their accuracy, reliability, usefulness, readability, semantic similarity, and hallucination rates. This cross-sectional study used 16 open-ended questions based on the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience's regenerative therapy guidelines for chronic pain. Questions were answered by ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Claude 4 Opus. Responses were rated on a 7-point Likert scale for usability and reliability, and a 5-point scale for accuracy. Hallucinogenicity, readability (FKRE, FKGL), and similarity (USE, ROUGE-L) were also assessed. Statistical comparisons were made, with significance set at p < 0.05. Claude Opus 4 showed the highest reliability (5.19 ± 1.11), usefulness (5.06 ± 1.0), and clinical accuracy (4.06 ± 0.68), outperforming ChatGPT-4o (4.13 ± 0.96; 3.94 ± 0.85; 3.38 ± 0.72) and Gemini 2.5 (4.19 ± 0.98; 4.06 ± 0.93; 3.38 ± 0.62). Claude had the lowest reference hallucinations (RHS 4.44 ± 3.18) vs. ChatGPT-4o (8.38 ± 1.86) and Gemini 2.5 (8.75 ± 1.73). In semantic similarity, Claude (0.68 ± 0.08) and Gemini (0.65 ± 0.07) surpassed ChatGPT-4o (0.60 ± 0.09). Gemini led in ROUGE-L F1 (0.12 ± 0.03) vs. Claude (0.10 ± 0.02) and ChatGPT-4o (0.07 ± 0.03). Readability was similar, though Gemini had a higher FKGL (11.3 ± 1.06) than Claude (10.3 ± 2.09). Claude Opus 4 showed superior accuracy, reliability, and usefulness, with significantly fewer hallucinations. Readability scores were similar across models. Further research is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41014370What 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.