ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2026
Assessing The Ability of ChatGPT 5.2 to Answer Patient Questions Regarding Hip Avascular Necrosis.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the quality and readability of Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) 5.2's responses to frequently asked patient questions about hip avascular necrosis (AVN), a challenging condition often requiring clear communication and shared decision-making. Methods: Sixteen commonly asked patient questions regarding hip AVN were submitted to ChatGPT 5.2 without follow-up queries. Each response was independently evaluated by 2 orthopedic surgeons with over 20 years of experience in hip arthroplasty. The quality of responses was assessed using the grading system proposed by Mika et al. Readability was analyzed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level (FKRL). Interrater reliability (IRR) was calculated using Cohen's kappa test. Results: Reviewer 1 rated 11/16 responses as "excellent-no clarification required" and 5/16 as "satisfactory-minimal clarification needed." Reviewer 2 rated 10/16 responses as excellent and 6/16 as satisfactory. The mean FRES score was 27.1 (range: 12.4-45.6), indicating the content was "difficult to read." The FKRL scores corresponded to college or college graduate reading levels. The IRR between reviewers was moderate (κ = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.09-1.00). Conclusion: ChatGPT 5.2 provided overall satisfactory to excellent responses regarding hip AVN. However, the high reading level required to understand these answers may limit their effectiveness in patient education unless simplified language is employed. Cite this article as: Şahin E, Baltacı Ç, Kalem M, Kocaoğlu H. Assessing the ability of ChatGPT 5.2 to answer patient questions regarding hip avascular necrosis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc., 2026; 60(2), 0629, doi:10.5152/j.aott.2026.25629.
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.