Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42828563›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2026

OsteoCHAT: real-world patient evaluation and benchmarking of a guideline-grounded osteoporosis chatbot.

Nils Schulz, Martin Gehlen, Karin Mahn, Björn Bühring, Paula Hoff, Olga Seifert, Edgar Wiebe, Asarnusch Rashid, Sebastian Kuhn, Frank Buttgereit and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors.

Nils SchulzDepartment of Osteology and Physical Medicine, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Bad Nauheim, Germany. n.schulz@kerckhoff-klinik.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0378-3766
Martin GehlenDepartment of Rheumatology and Osteology, Fürstenhof Klinik, Bad Pyrmont, Germany.
Karin MahnDepartment of Rheumatology and Osteology, Fürstenhof Klinik, Bad Pyrmont, Germany.
Björn BühringBergisches Rheuma-Zentrum, Cellitinnen-Krankenhaus St Josef, Wuppertal, Germany.
Paula HoffEndokrinologikum Berlin, Medizinisches Versorgungszentrum (MVZ) im Lindencorso, Berlin, Germany.
Olga SeifertKlinik und Poliklinik für Endokrinologie Nephrologie Rheumatologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland.
Edgar WiebeDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Asarnusch RashidZentrum für Telemedizin, Bad Kissingen, Germany.
Sebastian KuhnInstitute for Digital Medicine, School of Medicine, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Frank ButtgereitDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Alexander PfeilDepartment of Internal Medicine III, Jena University Hospital-Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Center of Rheumatology with Section Rheumatology and Osteology, Jena, Germany.
Peter OelznerJena University Hospital-Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.
Uwe LangeDepartment of Osteology and Physical Medicine, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Bad Nauheim, Germany.
Johannes Knitza *Institute for Digital Medicine, School of Medicine, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Philipp Klemm *Department of Osteology and Physical Medicine, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Bad Nauheim, Germany.

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme 101080711
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with osteoporosis have information needs that routine care inconsistently addresses. In this multicenter real-world evaluation, the LLM-based, guideline-grounded chatbot OsteoCHAT showed high participant acceptability and achieved expert-rated answer quality comparable to general-purpose LLMs. Despite challenges in complex treatment and safety-related topics, guideline-grounded chatbots may represent useful educational adjuncts. PURPOSE: Patients with osteoporosis have information needs that routine care inconsistently addresses. Guideline-grounded chatbots may offer scalable educational support

methodsWe developed OsteoCHAT, a retrieval-augmented conversational system based on the current German osteoporosis guideline, and conducted a multicenter evaluation at seven centers in Germany. Participants interacted with OsteoCHAT, provided real-time feedback on individual responses, and completed a standardized questionnaire assessing usability, comprehensibility, usefulness, trust, perceived quality, and preference over conventional internet search. In parallel, OsteoCHAT was benchmarked against three general-purpose large language models (LLMs) using ten osteoporosis frequently asked questions derived from the BfO patient guideline as the gold standard. Five clinical experts independently rated these responses across five domains, each scored 0-3.

resultsOverall, 1,075 question-answer interactions were recorded. Of 389 individually rated responses, 379 (97.4%) received positive feedback. Among 217 complete questionnaire responses, 84.3% rated answers as easily understandable, 79.8% found OsteoCHAT easy to use, 77.2% perceived time savings, and 78.7% considered it a useful addition to existing educational materials. Trust was comparatively lower (64.7% agreement). Blinded expert benchmarking showed acceptable-to-high-quality responses across all LLMs (median total scores 14/15 for Gemini, ChatGPT, and OsteoCHAT and 13/15 for Meta AI), with expert-identified weaknesses mainly concerning pharmacological treatment indication and communication of adverse and rare safety-critical events.

conclusionOsteoCHAT demonstrated high user acceptability and usability in a real-world multicenter evaluation, was rated as a valuable addition to existing educational materials, and achieved expert-rated response quality comparable to general-purpose LLMs, although limitations in safety communication were identified across all examined systems.

Indexed as

ChatbotClinical safetyDigital HealthGuideline adherenceOsteoporosisPatient education

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.