ArticleCureus2023
The Future of Patient Education: AI-Driven Guide for Type 2 Diabetes.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI in Patient Care: Evaluating Large Language Model Performance Against Evidence-Based Guidelines for Pulmonary Embolism.Thoracic research and practice · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large language model-generated information in diabetes health patient education: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Assessing the information quality of AI-generated patient educational materials for diabetes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Diabetes Care: Applications, Challenges, and Opportunities Ahead.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2025Review
- Performance of several large language models when answering common patient questions about type 1 diabetes in children: accuracy, comprehensibility and practicality.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Multiple large language models versus clinical guidelines for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a comparative study of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, ChatGPT-4o, Google Gemini, Google Gemini Advanced, and Microsoft Copilot.Archives of osteoporosis · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Enabled Lifestyle Medicine in Diabetes Care: A Narrative Review.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-assisted chatbot: impact on breastfeeding outcomes and maternal anxiety.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- The Effectiveness of a Custom AI Chatbot for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Health Literacy: Development and Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- ChatGPT and Gemini for Patient Education: A Comparative Analysis of Common Pediatric Exanthematous Conditions.Cureus · 2025Article
- Current applications and challenges in large language models for patient care: a systematic review.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Large Language Models May Help Patients Understand Peer-Reviewed Scientific Articles About Ophthalmology: Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Enhancement of the Performance of Large Language Models in Diabetes Education through Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence in Patient Education: ChatGPT Takes on Hypertension Questions.Cureus · 2024Article
- Large language models in patient education: a scoping review of applications in medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and aim The surging incidence of type 2 diabetes has become a growing concern for the healthcare sector. This chronic ailment, characterized by its complex blend of genetic and lifestyle determinants, has witnessed a notable increase in recent times, exerting substantial pressure on healthcare resources. As more individuals turn to online platforms for health guidance and embrace the utilization of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT; San Francisco, CA: OpenAI), a text-generating AI (TGAI), to get insights into their well-being, evaluating its effectiveness and reliability becomes crucial. This research primarily aimed to evaluate the correctness of TGAI responses to type 2 diabetes (T2DM) inquiries via ChatGPT. Furthermore, this study aimed to examine the consistency of TGAI in addressing common queries on T2DM complications for patient education. Material and methods Questions on T2DM were formulated by experienced physicians and screened by research personnel before querying ChatGPT. Each question was posed thrice, and the collected answers were summarized. Responses were then sorted into three distinct categories as follows: (a) appropriate, (b) inappropriate, and (c) unreliable by two seasoned physicians. In instances of differing opinions, a third physician was consulted to achieve consensus. Results From the initial set of 110 T2DM questions, 40 were dismissed by experts for relevance, resulting in a final count of 70. An overwhelming 98.5% of the AI's answers were judged as appropriate, thus underscoring its reliability over traditional online search engines. Nonetheless, a 1.5% rate of inappropriate responses underlines the importance of ongoing AI improvements and strict adherence to medical protocols. Conclusion TGAI provides medical information of high quality and reliability. This study underscores TGAI's impressive effectiveness in delivering reliable information about T2DM, with 98.5% of responses aligning with the standard of care. These results hold promise for integrating AI platforms as supplementary tools to enhance patient education and outcomes.
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.