ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2026
Assessment of large language models in musculoskeletal radiological anatomy: A comparative study with radiologists.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of multimodal large language models for the detection and characterization of bone lesions on radiographs.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of radiological anatomy knowledge and accuracy of ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5, and Grok 4 across normal and thinking modes.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.