ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
Are artificial intelligence-generated recommendations clinically safe? Evaluation of thromboembolic prophylaxis advice after arthroplasty.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
objectiveVenous thromboembolism prophylaxis remains a complex and controversial issue in orthopedic practice, with persistent variability in recommendations even among experts. With the growing use of online platforms and artificial intelligence, the aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and clinical adequacy of artificial intelligence-generated recommendations regarding venous thromboembolism.
methodsThirty-three guideline-based questions derived from International Consensus Meeting, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, American College of Chest Physicians, and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons recommendations were independently submitted to ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer [GPT]-4.0) by two orthopedic surgeons, resulting in 66 generated responses for analysis. Responses were assessed using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria, and a novel clinically oriented scale, the Thromboembolism Digital Knowledge Level. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients.
resultsAccording to DISCERN, 62.1% of responses were classified as good quality, whereas Thromboembolism Digital Knowledge Level evaluation demonstrated that only 45.45% of responses were clinically adequate, with no responses classified as excellent. The same responses were systematically categorized into higher quality levels by DISCERN compared to Thromboembolism Digital Knowledge Level. All scoring systems demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient range: 0.897-0.961). Although differences between scoring systems were statistically significant, the effect size was moderate (r=0.39). Strong correlations were observed between evaluators across all scales (p<0.001).
conclusionChatGPT-generated responses demonstrated good structural quality but limited clinical adequacy for thromboembolic prophylaxis after arthroplasty. These findings suggest that artificial intelligence systems should be used cautiously and may not be sufficient as standalone clinical decision-support tools.
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.