Logo del repository
  1. Home
 
Opzioni

Accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity in advising on lumbosacral radicular pain against clinical practice guidelines: cross-sectional study

Rossettini G.
•
Bargeri S.
•
Cook C.
altro
Gianola S.
2025
  • journal article

Periodico
FRONTIERS IN DIGITAL HEALTH
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots, which generate human-like responses based on extensive data, are becoming important tools in healthcare by providing information on health conditions, treatments, and preventive measures, acting as virtual assistants. However, their performance in aligning with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for providing answers to complex clinical questions on lumbosacral radicular pain is still unclear. We aim to evaluate AI chatbots' performance against CPG recommendations for diagnosing and treating lumbosacral radicular pain. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study to assess AI chatbots' responses against CPGs recommendations for diagnosing and treating lumbosacral radicular pain. Clinical questions based on these CPGs were posed to the latest versions (updated in 2024) of six AI chatbots: ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity. The chatbots' responses were evaluated for (a) consistency of text responses using Plagiarism Checker X, (b) intra- and inter-rater reliability using Fleiss' Kappa, and (c) match rate with CPGs. Statistical analyses were performed with STATA/MP 16.1. Results: We found high variability in the text consistency of AI chatbot responses (median range 26%–68%). Intra-rater reliability ranged from “almost perfect” to “substantial,” while inter-rater reliability varied from “almost perfect” to “moderate.” Perplexity had the highest match rate at 67%, followed by Google Gemini at 63%, and Microsoft Copilot at 44%. ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, and Claude showed the lowest performance, each with a 33% match rate. Conclusions: Despite the variability in internal consistency and good intra- and inter-rater reliability, the AI Chatbots' recommendations often did not align with CPGs recommendations for diagnosing and treating lumbosacral radicular pain. Clinicians and patients should exercise caution when relying on these AI models, since one to two-thirds of the recommendations provided may be inappropriate or misleading according to specific chatbots.
DOI
10.3389/fdgth.2025.1574287
WOS
WOS:001525659200001
Archivio
https://hdl.handle.net/11390/1310825
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/scopus/2-s2.0-105010867205
https://ricerca.unityfvg.it/handle/11390/1310825
Diritti
open access
Soggetti
  • artificial intelligen...

  • chatbot

  • ChatGPT

  • machine learning

  • musculoskeletal

  • natural language proc...

  • orthopaedic

  • physiotherapy

google-scholar
Get Involved!
  • Source Code
  • Documentation
  • Slack Channel
Make it your own

DSpace-CRIS can be extensively configured to meet your needs. Decide which information need to be collected and available with fine-grained security. Start updating the theme to match your nstitution's web identity.

Need professional help?

The original creators of DSpace-CRIS at 4Science can take your project to the next level, get in touch!

Realizzato con Software DSpace-CRIS - Estensione mantenuta e ottimizzata da 4Science

  • Impostazioni dei cookie
  • Informativa sulla privacy
  • Accordo con l'utente finale
  • Invia il tuo Feedback