ArticleClinical interventions in aging2025
Exploring and Comparing the Use of Large Language Models in Supporting Osteoporosis Health Consultations.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Molecular Pathways to Artificial Intelligence: Advancing the Understanding and Management of Osteosarcopenia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Comparison of three large language models in postoperative rehabilitation question answering after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction based on expert ratings.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Osteoporosis Diagnosis, Risk Prediction and Therapy: Current Advances, Clinical Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the medical accuracy and content comprehensiveness of three large language models (LLMs) in generating responses to frequently asked osteoporosis-related questions and to determine their potential role in clinical support. Methods: Twenty-five questions covering six clinical domains were submitted to each model in isolated sessions. Five senior orthopedic physicians, each with over 25 years of clinical experience, independently rated the medical accuracy of each response using a 5-point Likert scale. Responses rated as "acceptable" or above were further evaluated for content comprehensiveness. Statistical analysis included the Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's post hoc test with Bonferroni correction. Results: A total of 75 unique responses (25 questions × 3 models) were evaluated by five orthopedic experts, yielding 375 ratings. ChatGPT-4o achieved the highest accuracy score (median: 4.6; IQR: 4.4-4.8), significantly outperforming Gemini-2.5 Pro (p=0.039) and DeepSeek-R1 (p<0.001). For content comprehensiveness, both ChatGPT-4o and Gemini-2.5 Pro had a median score of 4.4, higher than DeepSeek-R1 (median: 4.2), though differences did not reach statistical significance (p=0.0536). Gemini-2.5 Pro was noted for its fluent and user-friendly language but lacked clinical depth in some responses. DeepSeek-R1, despite offering source citations, demonstrated greater inconsistency. Conclusion: LLMs have clear potential as tools for patient education in osteoporosis. ChatGPT-4o demonstrated the most balanced and clinically reliable performance. Nonetheless, expert medical oversight remains essential to ensure safe and context-appropriate use in healthcare settings.
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.