Cited by 38Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity in advising on lumbosacral radicular pain against clinical practice guidelines: cross-sectional study

Open access
Rossettini, Giacomo, Bargeri, Silvia, Cook, Chad, Guida, Stefania, Palese, Alvisa, Rodeghiero, Lia, Pillastrini, Paolo, Turolla, Andrea +2 more·2025·Frontiers in Digital Health

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots, which generate human-like responses based on extensive data, are becoming important tools in healthcare by providing information on health conditions, treatments, and preventive measures, acting as virtual assistants. However, their performance in aligning with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for providing answers to complex clinical questions on lumbosacral radicular pain is still unclear. We aim to evaluate AI chatbots' performance against CPG recommendations for diagnosing and treating lumbosacral radicular pain. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study to assess AI chatbots' responses against CPGs recommendations for diagnosing and treating lumbosacral radicular pain. Clinical questions based on these CPGs were posed to the latest versions (updated in 2024) of six AI chatbots: ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity. The chatbots' responses were evaluated for (a) consistency of text responses using Plagiarism Checker X, (b) intra- and inter-rater reliability using Fleiss' Kappa, and (c) match rate with CPGs. Statistical analyses were performed with STATA/MP 16.1. Results: We found high variability in the text consistency of AI chatbot responses (median range 26%–68%). Intra-rater reliability ranged from “almost perfect” to “substantial,” while inter-rater reliability varied from “almost perfect” to “moderate.” Perplexity had the highest match rate at 67%, followed by Google Gemini at 63%, and Microsoft Copilot at 44%. ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, and Claude showed the lowest performance, each with a 33% match rate. Conclusions: Despite the variability in internal consistency and good intra- and inter-rater reliability, the AI Chatbots' recommendations often did not align with CPGs recommendations for diagnosing and treating lumbosacral radicular pain. Clinicians and patients should exercise caution when relying on these AI models, since one to two-thirds of the recommendations provided may be inappropriate or misleading according to specific chatbots.

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 · 10.3389/fdgth.2025.1574287

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Remaining confounding could not be fully managed due to past digital literacy, learning styles, and educator proficiency.

    “Remaining confounding could not be fully managed, as a result of past digital literacy, learning styles and educator proficiency [29,30].”

    From HOW AI TOOLS (LIKE CHATGPT/GEMINI) AFFECT CRITICAL THINKING IN NURSING STUDENTS. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Materials and methods > Procedure section describes steps to limit chatbot learning bias, while Discussion > Implications for clinical practice recommends digital health literacy training. Neither addresses remaining confounding from prior digital literacy, learning styles, or educator proficiency. Searches for those factors and for limitations did not find a passage supporting the claim; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [18]Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Graham R Mancher M Miller Wolman D Greenfield S Steinberg E, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) (2011). Available at: https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209537/ (Accessed June 15, 2025). 24983061

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rossettini, G., Bargeri, S., Cook, C., Guida, S., Palese, A., Rodeghiero, L., Pillastrini, P., Turolla, A., Castellini, G., & Gianola, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi - Sant'Ambrogio (IT)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Udine (IT)
  • Krankenhaus Meran (IT)
  • IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola (IT)
Corresponding author
Rodeghiero, Lia
Venue
Frontiers in Digital Health
Published
2025-06-27
Volume
7
Pages
1574287-1574287
ISSN
2673-253X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4411706303
Cited by
31
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 6
FWCI
7.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Institutional Research Information System (University of Udine) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Ministero della Salute
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
AI chatbots, lumbosacral radicular pain, guideline adherence, ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, perplexity, inter-rater reliability

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