ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2025
Widely Available Large Language Models Are Not a Reliable Source to Address Medical Treatment Recommendations of Patients After a First-Time Anteroinferior Shoulder Dislocation.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 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
Purpose: To assess the ability of ChatGPT 3.5 to aid in the treatment planning process of first-time anteroinferior shoulder dislocation. Methods: Forty fictional patient cases were created varying in 15 different characteristics, whose distribution was randomized. Six orthopaedic surgeons (3 residents and 3 specialists in shoulder surgery) were then asked to determine the best treatment option for these patient cases. Their answers were compared with the treatment recommendations proposed by ChatGPT in 2 different sessions on the basis of preselected literature. To counteract the wide dispersion of responses, tendencies towards nonoperative, open surgical, or arthroscopic treatment were subsequently defined. The results were then analyzed descriptively. Results: The mean age of the fictional patients was 44 years (13-80 years), with 57.5% of the patients female. The agreement between the ChatGPT responses in the 2 sessions was 70.0%. In contrast, the 3 assistant physicians agreed with each other in 35% of all cases and the 3 specialists agreed in 32.5% of all cases. There was an exact match of 12.5% between the ChatGPT responses and all human assessments. In 65.0% of all cases, the physicians showed similar tendencies in their choice of therapy resulting in a 55.0% match between ChatGPT and the surgeons. Conclusions: There was no clear consensus regarding the treatment for first-time anteroinferior dislocations of the shoulder, neither among physicians nor with ChatGPT 3.5. However, ChatGPT 3.5 and physicians showed similar tendencies regarding the treatment in over half of the cases. Because of the inconsistent responses of ChatGPT 3.5, it cannot yet be considered as reliable tool for therapy planning. Clinical Relevance: ChatGPT 3.5, widely available and free of charge, is increasingly used in clinical settings. However, it's crucial to highlight its limitations in treatment planning for pathologies, especially when there's no clear consensus even among experienced surgeons.
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.