ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Do ChatGPT and Gemini provide accurate answers to patient questions about glenohumeral arthritis?
Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Machine learning, a subset of artificial intelligence, enables large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and Gemini to analyze data, learn from context, and generate responses without explicit programming. While machine learning and LLMs show promise in orthopedic image analysis and patient education, it is unclear whether LLMs provide accurate responses to patient queries. Methods: Our purpose was to evaluate the alignment of ChatGPT and Gemini's recommendations for managing glenohumeral arthritis with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). Both ChatGPT and Gemini were asked questions based on strong- or moderate-strength recommendations from the AAOS CPG on management of glenohumeral arthritis. Responses were classified by 2 independent reviewers as "agree," "neutral," or "disagree" based on their alignment with the CPG recommendations. A Results: Of the 12 recommendations of strong- or moderate-strength evidence, ChatGPT and Gemini provided responses that were in agreement for 6 (50%) and 9 (75%) of recommendations, respectively. There were no significant differences in performance between ChatGPT and Gemini. ChatGPT provided 6 study references, of which 4 were nonexistent or inappropriately cited. Gemini provided 32 study references, of which 5 studies were nonexistent or inappropriately cited. Conclusion: Both ChatGPT and Gemini do not consistently provide responses that align with the AAOS CPG for management of glenohumeral arthritis. Responses frequently included confabulated details or inappropriately referenced articles. Consequently, physicians and patients should use these artificial intelligence platforms with caution when seeking advice on management of glenohumeral arthritis.
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.