ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
ChatGPT provides high-quality answers to FAQs about high tibial osteotomy despite low inter-rater agreement.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) is frequently used to treat knee malalignment in younger patients. Given the rise in online health information-seeking behaviour, this study aimed to evaluate the quality of ChatGPT-generated responses to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about HTO and to assess the reliability of two scoring systems used by orthopaedic surgeons. Methods: Twenty-four FAQs were submitted to ChatGPT (GPT-4-turbo). Four orthopaedic surgeons independently rated the responses at two time points using: (1) a 4-point categorical scale (1 = excellent, 4 = poor), and (2) a 100-point numerical scale (0 = worst, 100 = best). Intra-observer reliability was assessed using weighted kappa ( Results: Most responses were rated positively, with over 70% considered 'excellent' or requiring minimal clarification. Intra-observer agreement was variable, ranging from Conclusion: ChatGPT responses to HTO-related FAQs were rated as high quality by most evaluators. However, the low inter-observer agreement highlights the need for standardised evaluation tools and suggests that expert oversight remains essential when integrating AI-generated content into patient education. Level of Evidence: Level V.
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.