Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38024047›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

The Future of Patient Education: AI-Driven Guide for Type 2 Diabetes.

Carlos A Hernandez, Andres E Vazquez Gonzalez, Anastasiia Polianovskaia, Rafael Amoro Sanchez, Veronica Muyolema Arce, Ahmed Mustafa, Ekaterina Vypritskaya, Oscar Perez Gutierrez, Muhammad Bashir, Ashkan Eighaei Sedeh

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Carlos A HernandezInternal Medicine, Ross University School of Medicine, Bridgetown, BRB.
Andres E Vazquez GonzalezInternal Medicine, Capital Health, Trenton, USA.
Anastasiia PolianovskaiaInternal Medicine, Capital Health, Trenton, USA.
Rafael Amoro SanchezInternal Medicine, Capital Health, Trenton, USA.
Veronica Muyolema ArceInternal Medicine, Capital Health, Trenton, USA.
Ahmed MustafaInternal Medicine, Capital Health, Trenton, USA.
Ekaterina VypritskayaInternal Medicine, Capital Health, Trenton, USA.
Oscar Perez GutierrezInternal Medicine, Capital Health, Trenton, USA.
Muhammad BashirInternal Medicine, Capital Health, Trenton, USA.
Ashkan Eighaei SedehInternal Medicine, Capital Health, Trenton, USA.
Capital Health · USRoss University School of Medicine · BB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligencechatgptdiabeteshealth educationopenaipatient educationtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID38024047
PMCPMC10654048
OpenAlexW4388745175

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.