Back to results
Bibliographic record · Consultation and access
Artículo

Comparative evaluation of LLMs in orthopedic surgery

Gnaneswar Chundi et al · Elsevier · 2026

Supplementary material available
Quick overview. Review the resource’s basic details, then access the content using the main button. This page shows only the information needed to identify, cite, and open the work.

Resource access

Open the content from the main option or choose another available source.

DOAJ DOAJ Articles
Entrar por DOAJ
Main access

Supplementary material available

El enlace apunta a material asociado, anexos, tablas, datos o página complementaria. No se marca como libro/texto completo.
Open material

Summary

Descripción general del contenido del recurso.

Aims/objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of leading large language models (LLMs) in orthopedic surgery, with a focus on diagnostic accuracy, radiographic interpretation, subspecialty-specific performance, consistency, and gender bias. Unlike previous investigations that focused solely on ChatGPT, we assessed Claude-3-Sonnet, GPT-4o, Gemini-1.5, and Meta's LLaMA Vision-Instruct models against Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) questions. Methods: We tested each LLM on 2906 multiple-choice questions from the OITE question bank. Questions were categorized by subspecialty and by presence of images. Models provided answer choices, confidence scores (1–4), and justifications. Each question was administered three times to evaluate consistency. Statistical analyses included Z-tests, t-tests, ANOVA, chi-square tests, and logistic regression. Rasch transformation enabled comparison to PGY-1 and PGY-5 resident performance. Gender bias was evaluated based on performance differences across gender-specific cases. Results: GPT-4o achieved the highest accuracy (72.8 %), outperforming all other models. Performance improved with larger model sizes across all vendors. All models showed diminished accuracy on image-based questions (mean 10.9 % lower, p < 0.001). Confidence scores and triplicate agreement were associated with accuracy; their combination yielded the most reliable outputs (up to 83.4 % accuracy). Several models exhibited worse performance on female patient questions, indicating possible gender bias. Conclusion: LLMs demonstrate varying levels of accuracy in orthopaedic applications, with GPT-4o approaching PGY-5 performance, strictly in the context of standardized exam questions. Current models underperform on image-based questions and exhibit gender bias. Response confidence and consistency can flag reliable outputs. Continued development, bias mitigation, and fine-tuning with diverse, domain-specific datasets are essential for integration of LLMs into orthopaedic education and practice.

How to cite

Elegí el formato que necesitás y copiá la referencia al portapapeles.

APA 7

al, G. C. E. (2026). Comparative evaluation of LLMs in orthopedic surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jorep.2025.100728

MLA

al, Gnaneswar Chundi et. "Comparative evaluation of LLMs in orthopedic surgery." 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jorep.2025.100728.

Chicago

al, Gnaneswar Chundi et. 2026. "Comparative evaluation of LLMs in orthopedic surgery.". https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jorep.2025.100728.

Harvard

al, G. C. E. 2026, Comparative evaluation of LLMs in orthopedic surgery, Elsevier, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jorep.2025.100728 [Accessed 7 Aug. 2026].

Share and print

Save the record, copy its permanent link, or print it as a PDF.

Export reference

You can export the record in common formats for use in a reference manager.

Resource details

Bibliographic information to help confirm that this is the correct material.

Title
Comparative evaluation of LLMs in orthopedic surgery
Author / contributors
Gnaneswar Chundi et al
Publisher
Elsevier
Publication year
2026
ISSN
2773-157X
ISSN
2773-157X
Language
English

Subjects

Explore related resources through these subjects.

Copied