ArticleScientific reports2024
Availability of ChatGPT to provide medical information for patients with kidney cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging generative AI to enhance doctor-patient communication.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Article
- Factors Shaping Trust and Satisfaction With AI Medical Chatbots: A Mixed Methods Vignette Survey of Caregivers Seeking Guidance on Pediatric Infectious Diseases.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A multicenter multifunctional assessment of large language models in pure-tone audiogram interpretation for patients.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- ChatGPT Versus DeepSeek for Breast Cancer Information Retrieval: Quantitative Comparative Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Developing a Service Quality Index System for AI Health Care Chatbots: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Does the Quality and Readability of Information Related to Varicocele Obtained from ChatGPT 4.0 Remain Consistent Across Different Models of Inquiry?The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4o as educational sources for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Confirmation of Large Language Models in Head and Neck Cancer Staging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Reducing Hallucinations and Trade-Offs in Responses in Generative AI Chatbots for Cancer Information: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Clinical applications and limitations of large language models in nephrology: a systematic review.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Article
- An academic evaluation of ChatGpt's ability and accuracy in creating patient education resources for rare cardiovascular diseases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Large language model integrations in cancer decision-making: a systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Assessing the Quality and Reliability of ChatGPT's Responses to Radiotherapy-Related Patient Queries: Comparative Study With GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Performance of artificial intelligence chatbots in responding to the frequently asked questions of patients regarding dental prostheses.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- AI-Driven Information for Relatives of Patients with Malignant Middle Cerebral Artery Infarction: A Preliminary Validation Study Using GPT-4o.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- How Italian radiation oncologists use ChatGPT: a survey by the young group of the Italian association of radiotherapy and clinical oncology (yAIRO).La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Article
- ChatGPT, Google, or PINK? Who Provides the Most Reliable Information on Side Effects of Systemic Therapy for Early Breast Cancer?Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Identification of kidney-related medications using AI from self-captured pill images.Renal failure · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
ChatGPT is an advanced natural language processing technology that closely resembles human language. We evaluated whether ChatGPT could help patients understand kidney cancer and replace consultations with urologists. Two urologists developed ten questions commonly asked by patients with kidney cancer. The answers to these questions were produced using ChatGPT. The five-dimension SERVQUAL model was used to assess the service quality of ChatGPT. The survey was distributed to 103 urologists via email, and twenty-four urological oncologists specializing in kidney cancer were included as experts with more than 20 kidney cancer cases in clinic per month. All respondents were physicians. We received 24 responses to the email survey (response rate: 23.3%). The appropriateness rate for all ten answers exceeded 60%. The answer to Q2 received the highest agreement (91.7%, etiology of kidney cancer), whereas the answer to Q8 had the lowest (62.5%, comparison with other cancers). The experts gave low assessment ratings (44.4% vs. 93.3%, p = 0.028) in the SERVQUAL assurance (certainty of total answers) dimension. Positive scores for the overall understandability of ChatGPT answers were assigned by 54.2% of responders, and 70.8% said that ChatGPT could not replace explanations provided by urologists. Our findings affirm that although ChatGPT answers to kidney cancer questions are generally accessible, they should not supplant the counseling of a urologist.
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.