Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37969495›Full record

ArticleJSES international2023

Breaking barriers: can ChatGPT compete with a shoulder and elbow specialist in diagnosis and management?

Mohammad Daher, Jonathan Koa, Peter Boufadel, Jaspal Singh, Mohamad Y Fares, Joseph A Abboud

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mohammad DaherHotel Dieu de France, Beirut, Lebanon.
Jonathan KoaRothman Institute/Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Peter BoufadelRothman Institute/Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jaspal SinghRothman Institute/Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Mohamad Y FaresRothman Institute/Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Joseph A AbboudRothman Institute/Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Rothman Institute · USHôtel-Dieu de France · LB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceChatGPTDiagnosis and managementEmpathyOrthopedicsShoulder and elbow surgery

Identifiers

PMID37969495
PMCPMC10638599
OpenAlexW4386409641

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.