ArticleDigital health
Comparative evaluation of large language models for hip fracture-related patient questions: DeepSeek-V3-FW, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and ChatGPT-4.5.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Generative artificial intelligence and language models in trauma surgery : Applications in clinical care, research and teaching].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Large Language Models in Generating Physical Exercise Rehabilitation Programs for Musculoskeletal Disorders Across Multiple Clinical Scenarios.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Emerging era of robotics and artificial intelligence in orthopaedic trauma surgery.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Article
- The Quality of AI-Generated CABG Counseling: A Blinded Comparison of Two Language Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of vaccine information accuracy across large language models.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Transforming surgical ward rounds: constructivist pedagogy, structured models, and intelligent technologies.Frontiers in medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare for patient education and clinical decision support. However, systematic benchmarking in real-world clinical contexts remains limited, particularly for high-risk conditions such as hip fractures. Objective: To evaluate and compare the performance of three state-of-the-art LLMs-DeepSeek-V3-FW, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and ChatGPT-4.5-in answering standardized patient questions on hip fracture management. Methods: Thirty standardized questions covering general knowledge, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation were developed by three specialists in orthopedics and traumatology. Each LLM generated responses independently. Three experienced orthopedic surgeons assessed accuracy (4-point scale) and comprehensiveness (5-point scale). Statistical analyses included Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared tests. Results: All models demonstrated high reliability, with 96.7% of responses rated "Good" or "Excellent" and none rated "Poor." Mean accuracy scores were comparable across models, and comprehensiveness averaged 4.8/5. DeepSeek-V3-FW tended to provide longer, structured answers and performed best in general knowledge, while Gemini 2.0 Flash excelled in diagnosis and rehabilitation and produced the most concise responses. ChatGPT-4.5 offered shorter, conversational answers with similar accuracy and detail. Conclusions: The three LLMs showed strong capabilities in delivering accurate and comprehensive information on hip fracture care, highlighting their potential as tools for patient education and clinical support. Differences in style and domain-specific strengths suggest complementary roles. Further research is needed to validate safety and integration into clinical workflows.
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.