Cited by 23Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTopic ModelingArtificial Intelligence in Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Enhancing responses from large language models with role-playing prompts: a comparative study on answering frequently asked questions about total knee arthroplasty

Open access
Chen, Yi-Chen, Lee, Sheng-Hsun, Sheu, Huan, Lin, Sheng-Hsuan, Hu, Chih-Chien, Fu, Shih-Chen, Yang, Cheng-Pang, Lin, Yu-Chih·2025·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical education and patient interaction is rapidly growing. Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Google Gemini, and Claude 3 Opus have shown potential in providing relevant medical information. This study aims to evaluate and compare the performance of these LLMs in answering frequently asked questions (FAQs) about Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA), with a specific focus on the impact of role-playing prompts. METHODS: Four leading LLMs-GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Google Gemini, and Claude 3 Opus-were evaluated using ten standardized patient inquiries related to TKA. Each model produced two distinct responses per question: one generated under zero-shot prompting (question-only), and one under role-playing prompting (instructed to simulate an experienced orthopaedic surgeon). Four orthopaedic surgeons evaluated responses for accuracy and comprehensiveness on a 5-point Likert scale, along with a binary measure for acceptability. Statistical analyses (Wilcoxon rank sum and Chi-squared tests; P < 0.05) were conducted to compare model performance. RESULTS: ChatGPT-4 with role-playing prompts achieved the highest scores for accuracy (3.73), comprehensiveness (4.05), and acceptability (77.5%), followed closely by ChatGPT-3.5 with role-playing prompts (3.70, 3.85, 72.5%, respectively). Google Gemini and Claude 3 Opus demonstrated lower performance across all metrics. In between-model comparisons based on zero-shot prompting, ChatGPT-4 achieved significantly higher scores of both accuracy and comprehensiveness relative to Google Gemini (P = 0.031 and P = 0.009, respectively) and Claude 3 Opus (P = 0.019 and P = 0.002), and demonstrated higher acceptability than Claude 3 Opus (P = 0.006). Within-model comparisons showed role-playing significantly improved all metrics for ChatGPT-3.5 (P < 0.05) and acceptability for ChatGPT-4 (P = 0.033). No significant prompting effects were observed for Gemini or Claude. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that role-playing prompts significantly enhance the performance of LLMs, particularly for ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4, in answering FAQs related to TKA. ChatGPT-4, with role-playing prompts, showed superior performance in terms of accuracy, comprehensiveness, and acceptability. Despite occasional inaccuracies, LLMs hold promise for improving patient education and clinical decision-making in orthopaedic practice. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12911-025-03024-5

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Thirunavukarasu AJ, Ting DSJ, Elangovan K, Gutierrez L, Tan TF, Ting DSW. Large Language models in medicine. Nat Med. 2023;29(8):1930–40. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Finney Rutten LJ, Blake KD, Greenberg-Worisek AJ, Allen SV, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Online health information seeking among US adults: measuring progress toward a healthy people 2020 objective. Public Health Rep. 2019;134(6):617–25. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Calixte R, Rivera A, Oridota O, Beauchamp W, Camacho-Rivera M. Social and demographic patterns of health-related internet use among adults in the united States: a secondary data analysis of the health information National trends survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(18). · DOI
  4. Singh JA, Yu S, Chen L, Cleveland JD. Rates of total joint replacement in the united States: future projections to 2020–2040 using the National inpatient sample. J Rheumatol. 2019;46(9):1134–40. · DOI
  5. Kienzle A, Niemann M, Meller S, Gwinner C. ChatGPT May offer an adequate substitute for informed consent to patients prior to total knee arthroplasty-yet caution is needed. J Pers Med. 2024;14(1). · DOI
  6. Magruder ML, Rodriguez AN, Wong JCJ, Erez O, Piuzzi NS, Scuderi GR, et al. Assessing ability for ChatGPT to answer total knee arthroplasty-related questions. J Arthroplasty. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2024.02.023. · DOI
  7. Wright BM, Bodnar MS, Moore AD, Maseda MC, Kucharik MP, Diaz CC, et al. Is ChatGPT a trusted source of information for total hip and knee arthroplasty patients? Bone Jt Open. 2024;5(2):139–46. · DOI
  8. Yang J, Ardavanis KS, Slack KE, Fernando ND, Della Valle CJ, Hernandez NM. Chat generative pretrained transformer (ChatGPT) and Bard: artificial intelligence does not yet provide clinically supported answers for hip and knee osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2024;39(5):1184–90. · DOI
  9. Zhang S, Liau ZQG, Tan KLM, Chua WL. Evaluating the accuracy and relevance of ChatGPT responses to frequently asked questions regarding total knee replacement. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2024;36(1):15. · DOI
  10. Takagi S, Watari T, Erabi A, Sakaguchi K. Performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on the Japanese medical licensing examination: comparison study. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;9e48002. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Taloni A, Borselli M, Scarsi V, Rossi C, Coco G, Scorcia V, et al. Comparative performance of humans versus GPT-4.0 and GPT-3.5 in the self-assessment program of American academy of ophthalmology. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):18562. · DOI
  12. Rosol M, Gasior JS, Laba J, Korzeniewski K, Mlynczak M. Evaluation of the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on the Polish medical final examination. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):20512. · DOI
  13. Li D, Gupta K, Bhaduri M, Sathiadoss P, Bhatnagar S, Chong J, Comparing. GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 accuracy and drift in radiology diagnosis please cases. Radiology. 2024;310(1):e232411. · DOI
  14. Lim ZW, Pushpanathan K, Yew SME, Lai Y, Sun CH, Lam JSH et al. Benchmarking large language models’ performances for myopia care: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, and Google Bard. EBioMedicine. 2023;95104770. · DOI
  15. Giannakopoulos K, Kavadella A, Aaqel Salim A, Stamatopoulos V, Kaklamanos EG. Evaluation of the performance of generative AI large Language models chatGPT, Google bard, and Microsoft Bing chat in supporting evidence-based dentistry: comparative mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25e51580. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Sandmann S, Riepenhausen S, Plagwitz L, Varghese J. Systematic analysis of ChatGPT, Google search and Llama 2 for clinical decision support tasks. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):2050. · DOI
  17. Carla MM, Gambini G, Baldascino A, Giannuzzi F, Boselli F, Crincoli E, et al. Exploring AI-chatbots’ capability to suggest surgical planning in ophthalmology: ChatGPT versus Google gemini analysis of retinal detachment cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2023-325143. · DOI
  18. Abbas A, Rehman MS, Rehman SS. Comparing the performance of popular large Language models on the National board of medical examiners sample questions. Cureus. 2024;16(3):e55991.
  19. Heston T, Khun C. Prompt engineering in medical education. Int Med Educ. 2023;2(3):198–205. · DOI
  20. Poonprasartporn A, Uttaranakorn P, Chuaybamroong R. Comparing the accuracy and referencing of ChatGPT’s responses to herbal medicine queries: A zero-shot versus roleplay prompting approach. Thai J Pharm Sci. 2023;47(4). · DOI
  21. Dy CJ, Taylor SA, Patel RM, Kitay A, Roberts TR, Daluiski A. The effect of search term on the quality and accuracy of online information regarding distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37(9):1881–7. · DOI
  22. Garcia GH, Taylor SA, Dy CJ, Christ A, Patel RM, Dines JS. Online resources for shoulder instability: what are patients reading? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(20):e177. · DOI
  23. Mathur S, Shanti N, Brkaric M, Sood V, Kubeck J, Paulino C, et al. Surfing for scoliosis: the quality of information available on the internet. Spine. 2005;30(23):2695–700. · DOI
  24. Wang D, Jayakar RG, Leong NL, Leathers MP, Williams RJ, Jones KJ. Evaluation of the quality, accuracy, and readability of online patient resources for the management of articular cartilage defects. Cartilage. 2017;8(2):112–8. · DOI
  25. Kong A, Zhao S, Chen H, Li Q, Qin Y, Sun R et al. Better zero-shot reasoning with role-play prompting. ArXiv, abs/230807702. 2023. · DOI
  26. De Angelis L, Baglivo F, Arzilli G, Privitera GP, Ferragina P, Tozzi AE et al. ChatGPT and the rise of large Language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health. Front Public Health. 2023;111166120. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Zhao J, Qian Z, Cao J, Wang Y, Ding Y. Role-play paradox in large Language models: reasoning performance gains and ethical dilemmas. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:240913979. 2024.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chen, Y.-C., Lee, S.-H., Sheu, H., Lin, S.-H., Hu, C.-C., Fu, S.-C., Yang, C.-P., & Lin, Y.-C.
Affiliations
  • Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (TW)
  • National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (TW)
Corresponding author
  • Yang, Cheng-Pang
  • Lin, Yu-Chih
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2025-05-23
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
196-196
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410630645
Cited by
23
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 4
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
large language models, total knee arthroplasty, frequently asked questions, ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-3.5, Google Gemini, Claude 3 Opus, patient acceptability, artificial intelligence in medical education, model comparison
MeSH terms
Large Language Models, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Language, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review