Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38144348›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

A systematic review and meta-analysis on ChatGPT and its utilization in medical and dental research.

Hiroj Bagde, Ashwini Dhopte, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Rehana Basri

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evaluation of GPT-5, a Large Language Model, in Replicating German Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations in Oral Oncology: A Cross-Sectional Concordance Study.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Hiroj BagdeDepartment of Periodontology, Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, India.
Ashwini DhopteDepartment of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, India.
Mohammad Khursheed AlamPreventive Dentistry Department, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka, 72345, Saudi Arabia.
Rehana BasriDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Jouf University, Sakaka, 72345, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since its release, ChatGPT has taken the world by storm with its utilization in various fields of life. This review's main goal was to offer a thorough and fact-based evaluation of ChatGPT's potential as a tool for medical and dental research, which could direct subsequent research and influence clinical practices.

methodsDifferent online databases were scoured for relevant articles that were in accordance with the study objectives. A team of reviewers was assembled to devise a proper methodological framework for inclusion of articles and meta-analysis.

results11 descriptive studies were considered for this review that evaluated the accuracy of ChatGPT in answering medical queries related to different domains such as systematic reviews, cancer, liver diseases, diagnostic imaging, education, and COVID-19 vaccination. The studies reported different accuracy ranges, from 18.3 % to 100 %, across various datasets and specialties. The meta-analysis showed an odds ratio (OR) of 2.25 and a relative risk (RR) of 1.47 with a 95 % confidence interval (CI), indicating that the accuracy of ChatGPT in providing correct responses was significantly higher compared to the total responses for queries. However, significant heterogeneity was present among the studies, suggesting considerable variability in the effect sizes across the included studies.

conclusionThe observations indicate that ChatGPT has the ability to provide appropriate solutions to questions in the medical and dentistry areas, but researchers and doctors should cautiously assess its responses because they might not always be dependable. Overall, the importance of this study rests in shedding light on ChatGPT's accuracy in the medical and dentistry fields and emphasizing the need for additional investigation to enhance its performance. © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceChatGPTDentistryMachine learningMedicine

Identifiers

PMID38144348
PMCPMC10746423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.