ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2026
Evaluating large language model responses to patient questions on ulnar collateral ligament repair.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) repair continues to increase, so evaluating the accuracy and readability of information about this procedure that is produced by artificial intelligence (AI) models is important. This study assesses AI-generated responses to common patient questions about UCL repair.
methodsTwenty patient questions frequently encountered in clinical practice were submitted to ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok. Three fellowship- trained orthopedic surgeons independently rated answer accuracy using the ChatGPT Response Rating System (CRRS) and AI Response Metric (AIRM), which assign scores from 1-5, with lower scores indicating better accuracy. Responses with CRRS >2 were classified as requiring more than minimal clarification. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FKRE) and Grade Level (FKGL) metrics. Responses with an FKGL >6 exceeded the American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommended 6th grade reading level for patient education materials.
resultsMore than minimal clarification was required for 15% (3/20) of ChatGPT, 5% (1/20) of Gemini, and 40% (8/20) of Grok responses. Gemini (CRRS, 1.5±0.5; AIRM, 1.6±0.5) demonstrated significantly better accuracy than ChatGPT (CRRS, 2.0±0.4; P=0.0002; AIRM, 2.2±0.5; P=0.0001) and Grok (CRRS, 2.1±0.7; P=0.005; AIRM, 2.4±0.8; P=0.002). All responses exceeded the AMA/NIH 6th grade reading level threshold (FKGL >6). Gemini produced the highest FKGL (16.2±2.2), significantly higher than ChatGPT (14.4±1.6, P=0.005) and Grok (14.6±1.7, P=0.017). FKRE did not differ significantly among models (P=0.14).
conclusionsAI models generated generally accurate information about UCL repair but at reading levels far above the AMA/NIH recommendations. In this study, Gemini was the most accurate model and produced the least readable content. Level of evidence: III.
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.