ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
Readability of Orthopaedic Patient Educational Material: An artificial intelligence application.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- ChatGPT-4o is Not a Reliable Study Source for Orthopaedic Surgery Residents.JB & JS open accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to determine the efficacy of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in rewriting orthopaedic trauma hospital patient educational materials to a patient-appropriate reading level. Materials and methods: 35 orthopaedic patient educational articles were identified from three hospital networks with Level 1 Trauma Centers, categorized based on average reading level. They were run through a formatting Python code, and then a secondary code to determine readability metrics outlined in Table 1. The articles were then rewritten via four iterations of Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) AI language models. Each model was given the same prompt, outlined in Fig. 1, to rewrite the articles to a 6th grade reading level per AMA recommendations. The rewritten articles were checked for accuracy and formatted and scored to determine mean reading level. Additional analysis was run comparing 9 different AI models from 3 different companies, using the same prompt, comparing cost and percent token reduction. Results: All GPT AI models lowered the mean combined grade level (Table 2). Fig. 2 compares each GPT model's output to the original articles reading grade level. The oldest model (GPT-3.5-Turbo) was the least consistent and least effective. GPT-4o-Mini and GPT-4o were the most effective and consistent regardless of original article difficulty. Table 3 outlines the cost of running all 35 articles through each GPT model. The most accurate model (GPT-4o) was only $0.61; however, there was only a 0.421 % increase in effectiveness comparing GPT-4o vs. GPT-4o-Mini, at a 175.38 % increase in cost. All GPT rewritten articles were screened for accuracy and determined to have no falsified information or medical inaccuracies. Expanded analysis across 9 AI models is demonstrated in Fig. 4. Fig. 5 compares cost and percent token reduction. Conclusion: AI is a viable option for reducing the reading difficulty of patient educational materials while maintaining accuracy. Of the models included for analysis, GPT-4o-Mini appears to be the most efficient language model when considering effectiveness, cost, and maintenance of the information included in the original articles.
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.