aceModerate evidence
Published recordScienceProblem Space
More
Large language models are comparable with commonly used statistical software: A validation of GPT 5.1 for frequentist meta‐analysis in orthopaedics
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2760raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Benchmark or lab evaluation
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- 92c389c20285…check it
Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether Chat Generative Pre‐trained Transformer (ChatGPT; Version 5.1) can reproduce frequentist meta‐analytic calculations with an accuracy comparable to established statistical software in orthopaedic research. Methods In this methodological comparison study, data from two previously published orthopaedic meta‐analyses with identical statistical architectures as reference standards were used. Between‐study variance ( τ 2 ) was estimated using the Sidik…
The problem
In a comparison using data from two published orthopaedic meta-analyses, ChatGPT-5.1 deviated majorly from R-package reference results in three of seven outcomes, mostly where studies varied widely.
What this doesn’t fix
The comparison used data from only two previously published orthopaedic meta-analyses with identical statistical architectures, covering seven outcomes, so the findings may not extend to other analysis types.
Sources
1 on file- Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopydoi:10.1002/ksa.70379
Cite this record
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2760, v1: “Large language models are comparable with commonly used statistical software: A validation of GPT 5.1 for frequentist meta‐analysis in orthopaedics.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2760 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 92c389c20285aff6…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2760 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.