ArticleJMIR medical education2023
Putting ChatGPT's Medical Advice to the (Turing) Test: Survey Study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
94 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applications and Concerns of ChatGPT and Other Conversational Large Language Models in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Trial
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Multimodal Large Language Models (LLMs) for Detecting Tuberous Breast Deformity from Standardized Photographs: A Descriptive in Silico Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Can students identify AI? - A cross-sectional quantitative study about AI recognition in tablet-based MCQ assessment among fifth-year undergraduate medical students at Saarland University, Germany.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Conversational Artificial Intelligence as a Source of Oral Health Information: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Romanian Population.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Can ChatGPT provide reliable guidance to families of children with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy? A dual perspective of parents and experts.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- A scoping review of studies on secure messaging through patient portals: persistent challenges and potential solutions.npj health systems · 2026Article
- [Rotator Cuff Surgery and Artificial Intelligence: A Comparative Analysis of Quality and Readability Between ChatGPT and Gemini].Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2026Article
- Rotator Cuff Surgery and Artificial Intelligence: A Comparative Analysis of Quality and Readability Between ChatGPT and Gemini.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2026Article
- Patient and clinician engagement with generative artificial intelligence (GenAI): A scoping review of implications for patient-centered communication.Patient education and counseling · 2026Article
- ChatGPT in precision medicine.APL bioengineering · 2026Review
- IsAI & society · 2026Article
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Safety, accuracy, empathy, information quality, and readability of publicly accessible LLM-based chatbots for traumatic brain injury and concussion questions: a cross-sectional comparative study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluation and comparison of large language model responses to patient questions after diagnosis of high-risk human papillomavirus infection: an expert-rated digital patient education study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- "But it sounded confident": the role of accuracy, tone, and disclaimers in users' medical decision-making.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Evaluating AI-based comprehensive clinical decision support for sepsis and ARDS: protocol for a Clinician Turing Test.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Utilization of Generative AI-drafted Responses for Managing Patient-Provider Communication.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Token Probabilities to Mitigate Large Language Models Overconfidence in Answering Medical Questions: Quantitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.