Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41113882›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

A Retrospective Comparison of Artificial Intelligence and the Orthopaedic Multi-disciplinary Team in the Management of Intracapsular Neck of Femur Fractures.

Matthew K Emmerson, Ryan Hillier-Smith, Amar Malhas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 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

3 authors.

Matthew K EmmersonOrthopaedics, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, GBR.
Ryan Hillier-SmithOrthopaedics, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, GBR.
Amar MalhasOrthopaedics, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, could potentially support junior clinicians in making initial operative decisions for hip fractures. However, the safety and reliability of such use are uncertain. This study compared ChatGPT's management recommendations for patients with intracapsular neck of femur (NOF) fractures to decisions made by orthopaedic consultants and evaluated which patient factors influenced those recommendations. Methods We identified a retrospective cohort of patients admitted with an intracapsular NOF fracture over an 18-week period to a United Kingdom District General Hospital. We collected patients' age, sex, comorbidities, mobility status, and the 4 A's Test (4AT) score. De-identified data were entered into ChatGPT with instructions to recommend management based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance; ChatGPT's recommendations were compared with the operation recorded at the Trauma Meeting. When ChatGPT and consultants disagreed, we provided ChatGPT with the consultant's decision and rationale and recorded the revised recommendation. We then validated ChatGPT on a separate anonymized patient set. We used Cohen's Kappa to assess agreement and applied multinomial and binomial logistic regression and two-proportion z-tests to assess significance. Results One hundred five patients were included in the primary cohort, and 30 in the validation cohort. Initial agreement between ChatGPT and consultants was low [κ = 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.11 to 0.19, p = 0.70]. After in-session adjustment, agreement rose (κ = 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 - 1.00, p < 0.001), a statistically significant improvement (z = 10.3, p < 0.001). The only post-adjustment factor that significantly influenced ChatGPT's recommendations was age, showing that increasing age was associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving total hip replacement rather than hemiarthroplasty (odds ratio = 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94; p = 0.006). In the validation cohort, agreement fell (κ = 0.29, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.60, p = 0.06) and did not significantly differ from the initial agreement (z = -1.51, p = 0.13). Conclusion ChatGPT did not reliably replicate orthopaedic consultant decision-making for intracapsular NOF fractures. Although in-session adjustments produced high superficial concordance, this effect did not generalize to an independent dataset. The model's tendency to conform to user prompts risks creating false confidence in its outputs. Clinically focused, validated AI systems require further evaluation before they can safely augment operative decision-making.

Indexed as

artifical intelligenceclinical-decision makingelderly hip fractureselderly traumaorthopaedic surgery

Identifiers

PMID41113882
PMCPMC12529217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.