Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41054750›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2025

How do the Available LLM Platforms Fare as On-the-Go Orthopaedic Referencing Source? A Comparative Analysis.

Girinivasan Chellamuthu, Sathish Muthu, Siddeshwar Siddamanickam, Naveen Sathiyaseelan, Vibhu Krishnan Viswanathan, Raviteja Rudraraju, Rajkumar Rangabashyam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Girinivasan Chellamuthu *Orthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, India.
Sathish Muthu *Orthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, India.ORCID 0000-0002-7143-4354
Siddeshwar SiddamanickamOrthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, India.
Naveen SathiyaseelanOrthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, India.
Vibhu Krishnan ViswanathanOrthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, India.
Raviteja RudrarajuOrthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, India.
Rajkumar RangabashyamShri Hospitals, Tondiarpet, Chennai India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: On-the-go (OTG) reference is defined as the reference that clinicians make on the go in a narrow time frame during patient care, which tends to play a significant role in decision-making. The common sources of these references over the years, have been changing from hard copies of textbooks and journals to online platforms. With the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) based large language model (LLM) platforms, they are now being relied upon for these OTG references to provide clinicians with the necessary facts to make good clinical decisions by analyzing the maximum available resources. This study aims to compare the answers given by various LLM platforms with the answers obtained by clinicians using conventional referencing and also grade the relevance of the answers provided by these platforms. Methods: Three commonly used AI-based LLM chat platforms: ChatGPT Version 4(GPT 4), Microsoft Bing chat and Google Bard were selected for the study. 250 OTG clinical queries were collated from orthopaedic practitioners along with their answers and references used. The queries were given to the LLMs and their answers were compared and graded with the human answers for relevance and level of evidence (LOE) of the reference cited to support their answers. Results: We did not find any significant difference between the AI-LLM models tested regarding the relevance of generated answers to the clinical queries raised ( Conclusion: Of the three compared tools, Bing Chat used relatively better LOE in answering OTG questions. All three compared AI-LLM tools show promising results concerning OTG referencing. We propose that customization to the medical domain and regulatory policies are needed before their recommended use. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-025-01430-5.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceChatGPTGoogle BardLevel of evidenceLLMMicrosoft Bing

Identifiers

PMID41054750
PMCPMC12496309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.