ArticleCureus2023
ChatGPT's Epoch in Rheumatological Diagnostics: A Critical Assessment in the Context of Sjögren's Syndrome.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) in rheumatology: a comparative evaluation of the ChatGPT and DeepSeek application.BMC rheumatology · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of large language models on clinical questions for autoimmune diseases.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Large language models and the future of gastroenterology: dissecting the biopolitics of data in a global health ecosystem.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Advancing rheumatology with natural language processing: insights and prospects from a systematic review.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2024Review
- ChatGPT Performance in Diagnostic Clinical Microbiology Laboratory-Oriented Case Scenarios.Cureus · 2023Article
- Performance of popular large language models in glaucoma patient education: A randomized controlled study.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe rise of artificial intelligence in medical practice is reshaping clinical care. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have the potential to assist in rheumatology by personalizing scientific information retrieval, particularly in the context of Sjögren's Syndrome. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ChatGPT in providing insights into Sjögren's Syndrome, differentiating it from other rheumatological conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsA database of peer-reviewed articles and clinical guidelines focused on Sjögren's Syndrome was compiled. Clinically relevant questions were presented to ChatGPT, with responses assessed for accuracy, relevance, and comprehensiveness. Techniques such as blinding, random control queries, and temporal analysis ensured unbiased evaluation. ChatGPT's responses were also assessed using the 15-questionnaire DISCERN tool.
resultsChatGPT effectively highlighted key immunopathological and histopathological characteristics of Sjögren's Syndrome, though some crucial data and citation inconsistencies were noted. For a given clinical vignette, ChatGPT correctly identified potential etiological considerations with Sjögren's Syndrome being prominent. DISCUSSION: LLMs like ChatGPT offer rapid access to vast amounts of data, beneficial for both patients and providers. While it democratizes information, limitations like potential oversimplification and reference inaccuracies were observed. The balance between LLM insights and clinical judgment, as well as continuous model refinement, is crucial.
conclusionLLMs like ChatGPT offer significant potential in rheumatology, providing swift and broad medical insights. However, a cautious approach is vital, ensuring rigorous training and ethical application for optimal patient care and clinical practice.
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.