Cited by 62Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Performance of ChatGPT compared to clinical practice guidelines in making informed decisions for lumbosacral radicular pain: a cross-sectional study.

Gianola, Silvia, Bargeri, Silvia, Castellini, Greta, Cook, Chad, Palese, Alvisa, Pillastrini, Paolo, Salvalaggio, Silvia, Turolla, Andrea +1 more·2024·Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of an artificial intelligence chatbot to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations for providing answers to complex clinical questions on lumbosacral radicular pain. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We extracted recommendations from recent CPGs for diagnosing and treating lumbosacral radicular pain. Relative clinical questions were developed and queried to OpenAI’s ChatGPT (GPT-3.5). We compared ChatGPT answers to CPGs recommendations by assessing the (1) internal consistency of ChatGPT answers by measuring the percentage of text wording similarity when a clinical question was posed 3 times, (2) reliability between 2 independent reviewers in grading ChatGPT answers, and (3) accuracy of ChatGPT answers compared to CPGs recommendations. Reliability was estimated using Fleiss’ kappa (κ) coefficients, and accuracy by interobserver agreement as the frequency of the agreements among all judgments. RESULTS: We tested 9 clinical questions. The internal consistency of text ChatGPT answers was unacceptable across all 3 trials in all clinical questions (mean percentage of 49%, standard deviation of 15). Intrareliability (reviewer 1: κ = 0.90, standard error [SE] = 0.09; reviewer 2: κ = 0.90, SE = 0.10) and interreliability (κ = 0.85, SE = 0.15) between the 2 reviewers was “almost perfect.” Accuracy between ChatGPT answers and CPGs recommendations was slight, demonstrating agreement in 33% of recommendations. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT performed poorly in internal consistency and accuracy of the indications generated compared to clinical practice guideline recommendations for lumbosacral radicular pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(3):222-228. Epub 29 January 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12151

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2519/jospt.2024.12151

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Several chatbots have experienced inconsistent accuracy by clinical practice guideline standards.

    “Currently, few studies use clinical practice guidelines to define successful performance, and several chatbots have experienced inconsistent accuracy by these standards.168,169”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gianola, S., Bargeri, S., Castellini, G., Cook, C., Palese, A., Pillastrini, P., Salvalaggio, S., Turolla, A., & Rossettini, G.
Venue
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
Published
2024-03
Volume
54
Issue
3
Pages
222-228
ISSN
  • 0190-6011 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-1344
OpenAlex
W4391317566
Cited by
62
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 7
FWCI
5.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (University of Udine) (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, lumbosacral radicular pain, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, guideline adherence, artificial intelligence in clinical decision-making
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Back Pain, Cross-Sectional Studies, Decision Making, Humans, Reproducibility of Results

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