Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41391131›Full record

ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2026

Assessment of large language models in musculoskeletal radiological anatomy: A comparative study with radiologists.

Ali Salbas, Ebru Kul Baysan

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

Ali SalbasAtatürk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Radyoloji Kliniği, 35150 Karabaglar, İzmir, Türkiye. dralisalbas@gmail.com.
Ebru Kul Baysan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of large language models (LLMs) in musculoskeletal radiological anatomy and to compare their accuracy with radiologists of varying experience levels. PATIENTS AND

methodsBetween May 16, 2025 and June 12, 2025, a total of 175 multiple-choice questions (82 image-based, 93 text-only) were retrieved from Radiopaedia's open-access database. Questions were classified by anatomical region and imaging modality. Three LLMs, ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI), Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Anthropic), and Grok 3 (×AI), were assessed in a zero-shot setting. Their responses were compared to those of an attending musculoskeletal radiologist and two residents (senior and junior). Accuracy rates were calculated and statistically compared.

resultsThe attending radiologist achieved the highest overall accuracy (79.4%), followed by the senior (72.6%) and junior resident (66.9%). Among LLMs, ChatGPT-4o performed best overall (69.7%), particularly in text-based questions (88.2%). All LLMs outperformed radiologists in text-based questions but underperformed in image-based ones. The attending radiologist significantly outperformed all LLMs in image interpretation (p<0.001). Variations in performance were also noted across anatomical regions and imaging modalities, with some LLMs exceeding radiologists in specific domains such as spinal or shoulder anatomy.

conclusionWhile LLMs, particularly ChatGPT-4o, show strong performance in text-based anatomical questions, their accuracy in image-based musculoskeletal radiology remains limited compared to human radiologists. These findings suggest that LLMs can serve as supplementary tools in education but require further optimization, particularly for visual interpretation tasks, before clinical implementation.

Indexed as

LanguageMusculoskeletal SystemRadiologistsClinical CompetenceHumansInternship and ResidencyLarge Language ModelsRadiology

Identifiers

PMID41391131
PMCPMC12806154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.