4.7 Article

Are ChatGPT's Free-Text Responses on Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip and Knee Reliable and Useful?

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 12, Issue 20, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12206655

Keywords

artificial intelligence; large language model; periprosthetic joint infection; hip prosthesis; knee prosthesis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the performance of ChatGPT in answering questions about periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) of the hip and knee. The findings showed that ChatGPT's free-text responses were mostly reliable and useful, although there were variations in performance across different questions and subtopics.
Background: This study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT's performance on questions about periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) of the hip and knee. Methods: Twenty-seven questions from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection were selected for response generation. The free-text responses were evaluated by three orthopedic surgeons using a five-point Likert scale. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) was assessed via Fleiss' kappa (FK). Results: Overall, near-perfect IRR was found for disagreement on the presence of factual errors (FK: 0.880, 95% CI [0.724, 1.035], p < 0.001) and agreement on information completeness (FK: 0.848, 95% CI [0.699, 0.996], p < 0.001). Substantial IRR was observed for disagreement on misleading information (FK: 0.743, 95% CI [0.601, 0.886], p < 0.001) and agreement on suitability for patients (FK: 0.627, 95% CI [0.478, 0.776], p < 0.001). Moderate IRR was observed for agreement on up-to-dateness (FK: 0.584, 95% CI [0.434, 0.734], p < 0.001) and suitability for orthopedic surgeons (FK: 0.505, 95% CI [0.383, 0.628], p < 0.001). Question- and subtopic-specific analysis revealed diverse IRR levels ranging from near-perfect to poor. Conclusions: ChatGPT's free-text responses to complex orthopedic questions were predominantly reliable and useful for orthopedic surgeons and patients. Given variations in performance by question and subtopic, consulting additional sources and exercising careful interpretation should be emphasized for reliable medical decision-making.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available