ArticleJSES international2023
Breaking barriers: can ChatGPT compete with a shoulder and elbow specialist in diagnosis and management?
Article in JSES international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Large Language Model-Based AI Tools on Physician-Patient Communication: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- The implementation of artificial intelligence in upper extremity surgery: a systematic review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Pooled it
- Examining the Role of Large Language Models in Orthopedics: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Are Arthroplasty Patients Ready for Artificial Intelligence-Integrated Care?Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence advancements for orthopaedic clinical reasoning: longitudinal assessment of newer models (ChatGPT-5, Grok-3, Gemini 2.5 Flash) compared to clinicians.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Prompt Framing Modulates Safety in Shoulder and Elbow Red-Flag Vignettes: A Large Language Model Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- ChatGPT delivers mostly satisfactory but occasionally inaccurate and potentially unsafe answers to hip arthroscopy questions during the surgeon's learning curve.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Large language models in sports injury care: a comparative expert evaluation of GPT-4o and GPT-5.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Evidence for Digital Health Tools Designed to Support the Triage of Musculoskeletal Conditions in Primary, Urgent, and Emergency Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence models cannot yet replace experts in providing patient education for shoulder and elbow orthopaedic pathologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of joint · 2026Article
- AI chatbots as 'pocket doctors': intimate health support for young women in Lebanon.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Impact of prompting on large language model performance: ChatGPT-4 performance on the 2023 hand surgery self-assessment examination.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence Large Language Models in Personalized Rehabilitation Programs for Knee Osteoarthritis: An Observational Study.Journal of medical systems · 2025Observational
- Evaluating large language model workflows in clinical decision support for triage and referral and diagnosis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Adequacy of ChatGPT responses to frequently asked questions about shoulder arthroplasty: is it an appropriate adjunct for patient education?JSES international · 2025Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance comparison between generative AI and physicians.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Qualitative metrics from the biomedical literature for evaluating large language models in clinical decision-making: a narrative review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Review
- "Doctor ChatGPT, Can You Help Me?" The Patient's Perspective: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Large Language Model Prompting Techniques for Advancement in Clinical Medicine.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Response to letter to the editor regarding "Breaking barriers: can ChatGPT compete with a shoulder and elbow specialist in diagnosis and management?"JSES international · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI) language processing model that uses deep learning to generate human-like responses to natural language inputs. Its potential use in health care has raised questions and several studies have assessed its effectiveness in writing articles, clinical reasoning, and solving complex questions. This study aims to investigate ChatGPT's capabilities and implications in diagnosing and managing patients with new shoulder and elbow complaints in a private clinical setting to provide insights into its potential use as a diagnostic tool for patients and a first consultation resource for primary physicians. Methods: In a private clinical setting, patients were assessed by ChatGPT after being seen by a shoulder and elbow specialist for shoulder and elbow symptoms. To be assessed by the AI model, a research fellow filled out a standardized form (including age, gender, major comorbidities, symptoms and the localization, natural history, and duration, any associated symptoms or movement deficit, aggravating/relieving factors, and x-ray/imaging report if present). This form was submitted through the ChatGPT portal and the AI model was asked for a diagnosis and best management modality. Results: A total of 29 patients with 15 males and 14 females, were included in this study. The AI model was able to correctly choose the diagnosis and management in 93% (27/29) and 83% (24/29) of the patients, respectively. Furthermore, of the remaining 24 patients that were managed correctly, ChatGPT did not specify the appropriate management in 6 patients and chose only one management in 5 patients, where both were applicable and dependent on the patient's choice. Therefore, 55% of ChatGPT's management was poor. Conclusion: ChatGPT made a worthy opponent; however, it will not be able to replace in its current form a shoulder and elbow specialist in diagnosing and treating patients for many reasons such as misdiagnosis, poor management, lack of empathy and interactions with patients, its dependence on magnetic resonance imaging reports, and its lack of new knowledge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.