ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models in Inflammatory Arthritis: A Systematic Review Across Clinical Tasks

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the aipentium editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为大语言模型、生成式AI、ChatGPT相关技术、计算机视觉、深度学习等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Objective Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated for rheumatology tasks, but their performance in inflammatory arthritis remains unclear. We systematically reviewed LLM performance across clinical tasks in inflammatory arthritis. Methods We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD420261359100), searching PubMed, Scopus, and PubMed Central (January 2022 to April 2026) for studies evaluating LLM performance on clinical tasks in inflammatory arthritis. Two reviewers (Y.A., A.G.) screened 113 records. Results Eighteen studies covered rheumatoid arthritis (n=3), ankylosing spondylitis/axial spondyloarthritis (n=7), psoriatic arthritis (n=2), gout (n=1), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (n=1), and multiple diseases (n=4). Most diseases and tasks were represented by only one to a few studies, and the evidence base remains earlystage and uneven across conditions. Over 20 distinct LLMs were evaluated, including ChatGPT-3.5 to ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.0, DeepSeek-R1/V3, Claude, and Perplexity; ChatGPT/GPT variants were the most frequently tested models (16 of 18 studies), so the current evidence base is predominantly GPT/ChatGPT-based. Findings spanned patient education (n=11), guideline adherence (n=6), clinical reasoning (n=3), and other applications (n=1). All readability assessments exceeded recommended thresholds. Guideline concordance ranged from 48% to 96%. Accuracy was lower for case-based clinical scenarios (4.24/6) than FAQ and guideline-based questions (5.32–5.36/6; p=0.044). When compared with real clinical data, agreement was poor (Cohen and Fleiss κ ≈ 0). Conclusion LLMs may support patient education, factual medication queries, and structured guideline questions when used under clinician review, but should not be used for case-based reasoning, treatment selection, or autonomous clinical decisions. None of the 18 included studies evaluated retrieval-augmented or agent-based systems, and none prospectively validated LLMs in clinical workflows. Safe integration in rheumatology will require purpose-built, knowledge-grounded systems and prospective evaluation before routine clinical use.

Links and sources

Comments