ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence's Ability to Explore Literature on Orthopedic Navigation and Related Surgical Anatomy.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Artificial intelligence has recently garnered increased research interest in orthopedics; yet, its role in the exploration of orthopedic literature remains unknown. We aimed to evaluate the ability of ChatGPT and ScholarGPT to identify and outline literature on orthopedic navigation and the visualization of related surgical anatomy. Methods We asked ChatGPT and ScholarGPT to list and summarize five studies: 1) about augmented reality-based navigation in orthopedic surgery, 2) about how well augmented reality-based navigation enabled anatomical accuracy in orthopedic surgery, and 3) which compared augmented reality-based navigation with another navigation technique in orthopedic surgery. Regarding each query, we evaluated how many studies were correctly detected and accurately summarized. Results ChatGPT scored excellently in identifying studies across all three queries. However, its performances in accurately summarizing these studies were 40%, 60%, and 60% respectively. On the other hand, ScholarGPT's performances in identifying were 60%, 40%, and 0%, respectively, while in summarization, they were 0%, 20%, and 0%, respectively. Both platforms exhibited bias in favor of augmented reality-based navigation across all queries. Conclusion ChatGPT and ScholarGPT are not yet able to provide researchers with reliable data from the literature on orthopedic navigation and related surgical anatomy. Ongoing artificial intelligence development may essentially reinforce these platforms' potential to play a more significant role in orthopedic research.
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.