PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 25, 2026Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery2 citationsOpen Access

AAOS OrthoInfo provides more accessible information regarding femoroacetabular impingement than ChatGPT-4 while information accuracy is comparable

View Full Paper
JSJared SasakiCHCatherine HandAFAliya G. Feroe

Key Points

  • This study evaluates the readability and accuracy of information on femoroacetabular impingement from ChatGPT-4 versus AAOS OrthoInfo.
  • Nine questions about femoroacetabular impingement were asked to ChatGPT-4 with and without a readability prompt.
  • Readability was assessed using established indices.
  • Accuracy was evaluated using a 4-point scale by independent raters.
  • Statistical comparisons were conducted using t-tests and ANOVA (P < 0.01 threshold).
  • AAOS OrthoInfo content had a mean reading grade level of 8.0 and a Flesch Reading Ease score of 60.7.
  • Unprompted ChatGPT responses had a higher reading grade level of 16.2 and a lower score of 21.7 for readability (P < 0.001).
  • Prompting for readability improved ChatGPT responses to a grade level of 10.6 and a Flesch score of 58.2, comparable to OrthoInfo (P < 0.09).
  • Both sources provided high accuracy, but OrthoInfo's response on FAI causes was slightly lower (3.5 versus 4.0; P < 0.46).

Abstract

Abstract As artificial intelligence (AI) Large Language Models (LLM) like ChatGPT become more common in healthcare, patients increasingly use them to find medical information. While ChatGPT may support health literacy, its readability and accuracy compared to established resources remain unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate ChatGPT-4 responses on femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and its surgical management compared to AAOS OrthoInfo content. We hypothesize that ChatGPT may deliver medically accurate information, but its readability may fall short when compared to OrthoInfo. Nine questions based on the OrthoInfo FAI page were submitted to ChatGPT-4, with and without a readability prompt. Topics included anatomy, pathology, cause, symptoms, workup, imaging, treatment, role of hip arthroscopy, and outcomes. Readability was assessed using validated indices. Accuracy was independently rated using a 4-point scale. Statistical comparisons were made using t-tests and ANOVA (P 0.01 threshold). OrthoInfo content had a mean reading grade level of 8.0 and a Flesch Reading Ease score of 60.7. Unprompted ChatGPT responses were significantly less readable (grade level 16.2; Flesch score 21.7; P 0.001). Prompting for readability improved ChatGPT outputs (grade level 10.6; Flesch score 58.2), making them comparable to OrthoInfo (P 0.09). Accuracy was high across all sources, though OrthoInfo's response on FAI causes scored slightly lower (3.5 versus 4.0; P 0.46). ChatGPT provides accurate information on FAI. However, without prompting, its complexity may hinder patient understanding. Prompting for readability enables ChatGPT to match established resources like OrthoInfo. Tailored prompting is key to using LLM effectively in patient education and promoting health literacy.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sasaki et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6975b26ffeba4585c2d6dddchttps://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag001
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper