TRV-2026-1515Certified recordPeer-reviewed

Evaluating the Reliability, Accuracy, and Readability of ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in Providing Patient Education Related to Glenohumeral Joint Osteoarthritis

Objectives Chatbots have been increasingly recognized as modern tools that provide patients with reliable health-related information. This study aimed to evaluate and compare ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4's ability to answer glenohumeral osteoarthritis-related questions. Methods Fifteen questions were derived from the 2020 AAOS Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Glenohumeral Joint Osteoarthritis. Questions were categorized into three groups: risk factors, implant/intraoperative considerations, a…

Health · The Trace — both readings · certified 2026-10-16 · v1 · article view · machine-readable

Current reading — gain

Both chatbots gave adequately well-informed answers to patient-style questions about glenohumeral osteoarthritis, as judged by four fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons.

Current reading — problem

Both models scored lowest on evidence-based content, and GPT-3.5 answers were written at a harder reading level than GPT-4's.

What this doesn’t fix

The study used only fifteen guideline-derived questions on one condition, and the abstract reports no statistically significant differences between prompt themes, which limits how far the results generalize.

Evidence

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

Cite this record

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-1515, v1: “Evaluating the Reliability, Accuracy, and Readability of ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in Providing Patient Education Related to Glenohumeral Joint Osteoarthritis.” Truvace, 2026-10-16. /record/TRV-2026-1515 (accessed at citation time). sha256 54734056ecc395b9…

Calibration history

Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.

  1. Certifiedv154734056ecc3…

    Certified into the record

Verify this record
How to verify without trusting this page

Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-1515 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.