Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37428540›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2023

Putting ChatGPT's Medical Advice to the (Turing) Test: Survey Study.

Oded Nov, Nina Singh, Devin Mann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

94 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Comparative Study of Large Language Models, Human Experts, and Expert-Edited Large Language Models to Neuro-Ophthalmology Questions.Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. ChatGPT in precision medicine.APL bioengineering · 2026
    Review
  12. IsAI & society · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Oded Nov *Department of Technology Management, Tandon School of Engineering, New York University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6410-2995
Nina SinghDepartment of Population Health, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4623-2451
Devin MannDepartment of Population Health, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2099-0852

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChatbots are being piloted to draft responses to patient questions, but patients' ability to distinguish between provider and chatbot responses and patients' trust in chatbots' functions are not well established.

objectiveThis study aimed to assess the feasibility of using ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) or a similar artificial intelligence-based chatbot for patient-provider communication.

methodsA survey study was conducted in January 2023. Ten representative, nonadministrative patient-provider interactions were extracted from the electronic health record. Patients' questions were entered into ChatGPT with a request for the chatbot to respond using approximately the same word count as the human provider's response. In the survey, each patient question was followed by a provider- or ChatGPT-generated response. Participants were informed that 5 responses were provider generated and 5 were chatbot generated. Participants were asked-and incentivized financially-to correctly identify the response source. Participants were also asked about their trust in chatbots' functions in patient-provider communication, using a Likert scale from 1-5.

resultsA US-representative sample of 430 study participants aged 18 and older were recruited on Prolific, a crowdsourcing platform for academic studies. In all, 426 participants filled out the full survey. After removing participants who spent less than 3 minutes on the survey, 392 respondents remained. Overall, 53.3% (209/392) of respondents analyzed were women, and the average age was 47.1 (range 18-91) years. The correct classification of responses ranged between 49% (192/392) to 85.7% (336/392) for different questions. On average, chatbot responses were identified correctly in 65.5% (1284/1960) of the cases, and human provider responses were identified correctly in 65.1% (1276/1960) of the cases. On average, responses toward patients' trust in chatbots' functions were weakly positive (mean Likert score 3.4 out of 5), with lower trust as the health-related complexity of the task in the questions increased.

conclusionsChatGPT responses to patient questions were weakly distinguishable from provider responses. Laypeople appear to trust the use of chatbots to answer lower-risk health questions. It is important to continue studying patient-chatbot interaction as chatbots move from administrative to more clinical roles in health care.

Indexed as

AIartificial intelligencechatbotChatGPT, Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformerethicsfeasibilitylanguage modellarge language modelmachine learningpatient-provider interactionprivacy

Identifiers

PMID37428540
PMCPMC10366957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.