Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1809953
Can ChatGPT Aid in Musculoskeletal Intervention?
Funding None.

Abstract
Objective
Radiology has continuously evolved exploring cutting-edge technologies to improve patient care. It is a prime example of how medical science is propelled forward by technological innovation.
In recent times, artificial intelligence (AI) has played a crucial role in various technological advancements. Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT)-4, an AI language model primarily focusing on natural language understanding and generation, is increasingly used to retrieve medical information. This study explores the utility of ChatGPT-4o in aiding imaging-guided musculoskeletal interventions, detailing its advantages and limitations.
Methods
Two musculoskeletal radiologists assessed the information generated by ChatGPT on common musculoskeletal interventions. They analyzed the overall utility of ChatGPT-4o in guiding musculoskeletal interventions by examining the procedure steps and pre- and post-procedure details provided. The assessment was documented in a 5-point Likert scale and subjected to statistical analysis.
Results
The statistical analysis of Likert scale scores by both readers revealed a moderate level of inter-rater agreement, as indicated by a Cohen's Kappa score of 0.54. Across the categories, the mode of Likert score ranged from 1 to 3, as rated by both readers, indicating suboptimal performance. The lowest scores were observed in image quality assessments, whereas the highest ratings were of post-procedure details.
Conclusion
ChatGPT-4o offers structured procedural guidance but falls short in complex, image-dependent tasks due to limited anatomical detail and contextual accuracy. It may aid education, but not clinical use without expert oversight. Domain-specific training, validation, and multidisciplinary collaboration are essential for safe and effective integration into practice.
Keywords
musculoskeletal interventions - artificial intelligence - radiology - radiologists - language modelEthical Approval
Local ethical committee approval was not required.
Publication History
Article published online:
03 July 2025
© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Topol E. Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2019
- 2 Horiuchi D, Tatekawa H, Oura T. et al. ChatGPT's diagnostic performance based on textual vs. visual information compared to radiologists' diagnostic performance in musculoskeletal radiology. Eur Radiol 2025; 35 (01) 506-516
- 3 Bizzo BC, Almeida RR, Michalski MH, Alkasab TK. Artificial intelligence and clinical decision support for radiologists and referring providers. J Am Coll Radiol 2019; 16 (9, Pt B): 1351-1356
- 4 Jeblick K, Schachtner B, Dexl J. et al. ChatGPT makes medicine easy to swallow: an exploratory case study on simplified radiology reports. Eur Radiol 2024; 34 (05) 2817-2825
- 5 Polisetty TS, Jain S, Pang M. et al. Concerns surrounding application of artificial intelligence in hip and knee arthroplasty: a review of literature and recommendations for meaningful adoption. Bone Joint J 2022; 104-B (12) 1292-1303
- 6 Pesapane F, Codari M, Sardanelli F. Artificial intelligence in medical imaging: threat or opportunity? Radiologists again at the forefront of innovation in medicine. Eur Radiol Exp 2018; 2 (01) 35
- 7 Rajpurkar P, Irvin J, Ball RL. et al. Deep learning for chest radiograph diagnosis: a retrospective comparison of the CheXNeXt algorithm to practicing radiologists. PLoS Med 2018; 15 (11) e1002686
- 8 Keshavarz P, Bagherieh S, Nabipoorashrafi SA. et al. ChatGPT in radiology: a systematic review of performance, pitfalls, and future perspectives. Diagn Interv Imaging 2024; 105 (7-8): 251-265
- 9 Grewal H, Dhillon G, Monga V. et al. Radiology gets chatty: the ChatGPT saga unfolds. Cureus 2023; 15 (06) e40135
- 10 Bi WL, Hosny A, Schabath MB. et al. Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: clinical challenges and applications. CA Cancer J Clin 2019; 69 (02) 127-157
- 11 Sarangi PK, Lumbani A, Swarup MS. et al. Assessing ChatGPT's proficiency in simplifying radiological reports for healthcare professionals and patients. Cureus 2023; 15 (12) e50881
- 12 Srivastava U, Pezeshk P, Chhabra A. Patient satisfaction experience and outcomes after CT-guided bone marrow biopsy versus in-office bone marrow biopsy. Radiation. 2024; 4 (03) 224-231
- 13 Droste MF, van Velden FHP, van Oosterom MN. et al. Augmenting CT-guided bone biopsies using 18F-FDG PET/CT guidance. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16 (15) 2693
- 14 Wang S, Cao G, Wang Y. et al. Review and prospect: artificial intelligence in advanced medical imaging. Front Radiol 2021; 1: 781868
- 15 Bhayana R. Chatbots and large language models in radiology: a practical primer for clinical and research applications. Radiology 2024; 310 (01) e232756
- 16 Hayden N, Gilbert S, Poisson LM, Griffith B, Klochko C. Performance of gpt-4 with vision on text-and image-based acr diagnostic radiology in-training examination questions. Radiology 2024; 312 (03) e240153
- 17 Srivastav S, Chandrakar R, Gupta S. et al. ChatGPT in radiology: the advantages and limitations of artificial intelligence for medical imaging diagnosis. Cureus 2023; 15 (07) e41435
- 18 Parillo M, Vaccarino F, Beomonte Zobel B, Mallio CA. ChatGPT and radiology report: potential applications and limitations. Radiol Med 2024; 129 (12) 1849-1863
- 19 Najjar R. Redefining radiology: a review of artificial intelligence integration in medical imaging. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13 (17) 2760
- 20 Simon BD, Ozyoruk KB, Gelikman DG, Harmon SA, Türkbey B. The future of multimodal artificial intelligence models for integrating imaging and clinical metadata: a narrative review. Diagn Interv Radiol 2024; (e-pub ahead of print)
- 21 Arruzza ES, Evangelista CM, Chau M. The performance of ChatGPT-4.0o in medical imaging evaluation: a cross-sectional study. J Educ Eval Health Prof 2024; 21: 29
- 22 Viderman D, Dossov M, Seitenov S, Lee MH. Artificial intelligence in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia: a scoping review. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022; 9: 994805
- 23 Currie G, Hawk KE, Rohren E, Vial A, Klein R. Machine learning and deep learning in medical imaging: intelligent imaging. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2019; 50 (04) 477-487
- 24 Obermeyer Z, Emanuel EJ. Predicting the future—big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. N Engl J Med 2016; 375 (13) 1216-1219
- 25 Shen D, Wu G, Suk HI. Deep learning in medical image analysis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2017; 19 (01) 221-248
- 26 Millischer AE, Grevent D, Sonigo P. et al. Feasibility and added value of fetal DTI Tractography in the evaluation of an isolated short Corpus callosum: preliminary results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2022; 43 (01) 132-138
- 27 Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med 2019; 25 (01) 44-56
- 28 Choy G, Khalilzadeh O, Michalski M. et al. Current applications and future impact of machine learning in radiology. Radiology 2018; 288 (02) 318-328