TRV-2026-2226Certified recordPeer-reviewed

Accuracy of Large Language Model Chatbots in Retrieving MRI Safety Conditions for Medical Implants

Background Retrieving MRI safety conditions for implanted devices is increasingly complex and time-consuming. Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of internet-enabled large language model (LLM) chatbots in retrieving implant-specific MRI safety conditions, using manufacturer documentation as the reference standard. Study type Prospective comparative evaluation in a constructed device cohort, followed by a retrospective clinical pilot. Population Fifty purposively selected device configurations and 20 patients (10 wi…

Health · The Trace — both readings · certified 2026-10-24 · v1 · article view · machine-readable

Current reading — gain

ChatGPT correctly retrieved about 94% of implant MRI safety parameters in a constructed cohort and 98% in a small clinical pilot, which could ease a time-consuming lookup task.

Current reading — problem

Even the best-performing chatbot made errors, and Gemini and Claude were accurate on only about 78-79% of parameters, so outputs need checking against manufacturer documentation before clinical use.

What this doesn’t fix

Devices were purposively selected, the clinical pilot was retrospective and involved only 20 patients and a newer ChatGPT version, and errors persisted even with the best chatbot.

Evidence

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

Cite this record

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2226, v1: “Accuracy of Large Language Model Chatbots in Retrieving MRI Safety Conditions for Medical Implants.” Truvace, 2026-10-24. /record/TRV-2026-2226 (accessed at citation time). sha256 d35f5a3311e1c3ed…

Calibration history

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

  1. Certifiedv1d35f5a3311e1…

    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-2026-2226 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.