ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Assessing the accuracy and readability of ChatGPT 4.0's original and simplified responses to common patient questions regarding periacetabular osteotomy.
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.
- Assessing the accuracy and readability of ChatGPT 4.0's original and simplified responses to common patient questions regarding periacetabular osteotomy.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and readability of responses generated by ChatGPT 4.0 to 30 common patient questions about the Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). Methods: Two fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons specializing in hip preservation selected thirty questions from a prior study identifying common PAO questions on social media. Each question was entered into ChatGPT 4.0, and the surgeons independently graded responses. Responses were evaluated using an established grading system. Accuracy and comprehensiveness were assessed based on the concordance of response content with current literature. Readability was analysed by calculating the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease. Results: Regarding accuracy and comprehensiveness, 98.3% of responses were graded as "excellent" or "satisfactory, requiring minimal clarification." Readability analysis revealed an average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level corresponding to an 11th-grade reading level (11.09 ± 1.47) and a mean Reading Ease score requiring college level reading comprehension (39.12 ± 8.25) for original responses, 8th-grade reading level (8.16 ± 1.46) requiring high school to college level reading comprehension (51.53 ± 9.62) for simplified responses, and 7th-grade reading level (7.09 ± 1.23) requiring high school level reading comprehension (62.46 ± 7.48) for 6th grade responses. Conclusion: ChatGPT 4.0 offered excellent or satisfactory answers to the most common questions surrounding PAO. Asking ChatGPT 4.0 to simplify or respond at a specific reading level may increase the readability of responses. The 4.0 model has shown the potential to be a valuable adjunct for patient education, though the readability may need to be improved via simplified responses. Level of Evidence: Level N/A.
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.