Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40128385›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2025

Large Language Models' Responses to Spinal Cord Injury: A Comparative Study of Performance.

Jinze Li, Chao Chang, Yanqiu Li, Shengyu Cui, Fan Yuan, Zhuojun Li, Xinyu Wang, Kang Li, Yuxin Feng, Zuowei Wang and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Large language models in the vertical integration of spine surgery workflow: a scoping review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models for Breast Cancer Patient Education: A Comparative Study.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

12 authors.

Jinze Li *Department of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100053, China.
Chao Chang *Department of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100053, China.
Yanqiu Li *Center for Integrative Medicine, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shengyu CuiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100053, China.
Fan YuanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100053, China.
Zhuojun LiSchool of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China.
Xinyu WangBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Kang LiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100053, China.
Yuxin FengCapital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zuowei WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100053, China. wzw6855@163.com.
Zhijian WeiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Shandong University, No. 107 Wenhua West Road, Lixia District, 250012, Jinan, China. weizhijian2002@126.com.
Fengzeng JianDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100053, China. jianfengzeng@xwh.ccmu.edu.cn.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality 583003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the increasing application of large language models (LLMs) in the medical field, their potential in patient education and clinical decision support is becoming increasingly prominent. Given the complex pathogenesis, diverse treatment options, and lengthy rehabilitation periods of spinal cord injury (SCI), patients are increasingly turning to advanced online resources to obtain relevant medical information. This study analyzed responses from four LLMs-ChatGPT-4o, Claude-3.5 sonnet, Gemini-1.5 Pro, and Llama-3.1-to 37 SCI-related questions spanning pathogenesis, risk factors, clinical features, diagnostics, treatments, and prognosis. Quality and readability were assessed using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool and Flesch-Kincaid metrics, respectively. Accuracy was independently scored by three senior spine surgeons using consensus scoring. Performance varied among the models. Gemini ranked highest in EQIP scores, suggesting superior information quality. Although the readability of all four LLMs was generally low, requiring a college-level reading comprehension ability, they were all able to effectively simplify complex content. Notably, ChatGPT led in accuracy, achieving significantly higher "Good" ratings (83.8%) compared to Claude (78.4%), Gemini (54.1%), and Llama (62.2%). Comprehensiveness scores were high across all models. Furthermore, the LLMs exhibited strong self-correction abilities. After being prompted for revision, the accuracy of ChatGPT and Claude's responses improved by 100% and 50%, respectively; both Gemini and Llama improved by 67%. This study represents the first systematic comparison of leading LLMs in the context of SCI. While Gemini excelled in response quality, ChatGPT provided the most accurate and comprehensive responses.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalPatient Education as TopicSpinal Cord InjuriesComprehensionHumansLarge Language ModelsAccuracy assessmentLarge language modelQuality assessmentReadability assessmentSpinal cord injury

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.