ArticleCureus2026
Evaluating the Citation Accuracy of ChatGPT-5 Using the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines.
Article in Cureus, 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
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in generating medical responses; however, concerns persist regarding the accuracy of citations for these responses. Prior work has shown that earlier models frequently fabricate or misattribute references when queried on American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). With rapid advancements in model development, newer-generation LLMs may demonstrate improved citation accuracy and reliability. This study evaluates the citation accuracy of ChatGPT-5 in response to AAOS CPG-based queries.
methodsA computer-based observational study evaluating the citation accuracy of ChatGPT-5 (December 2025) was conducted from February to March 2026. Seventy recommendations from four AAOS CPGs were converted into standardized prompts, and ChatGPT was asked to generate a list of references to support its claims in response to these prompts. Five independent graders evaluated responses for citation accuracy. Citation elements assessed included title, authorship, journal, year, volume, pages, and PubMed identifier (PMID). Hallucinated references were defined as nonexistent or non-indexed studies.
resultsA total of 350 queries generated 2,736 references, of which 7.13% were fabricated. Citation inaccuracies were most frequent for PMID (37.28%), title (30.70%), and pages (27.49%). Overall, 49.34% of citations were bibliographically accurate, and complete accuracy within a query occurred in 8.00% of cases.
conclusionsCitation errors and fabricated references persist in ChatGPT-5. Independent verification of generated references therefore remains necessary.
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.