ArticleJournal of neurology2024
ChatGPT fails challenging the recent ESCMID brain abscess guideline.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- On the future of guidelines.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Comparison of the performances between ChatGPT and Gemini in answering questions on viral hepatitis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessing large language models as assistive tools in medical consultations for Kawasaki disease.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Elevated neutrophil to high-density lipoprotein ratio predicts pneumonia in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Protocol for human evaluation of generative artificial intelligence chatbots in clinical consultations.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith artificial intelligence (AI) on the rise, it remains unclear if AI is able to professionally evaluate medical research and give scientifically valid recommendations.
aimThis study aimed to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses to ten key questions on brain abscess diagnostics and treatment in comparison to the guideline recently published by the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID).
methodsAll ten PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) questions which had been developed during the guideline process were presented directly to ChatGPT. Next, ChatGPT was additionally fed with data from studies selected for each PECO question by the ESCMID committee. AI's responses were subsequently compared with the recommendations of the ESCMID guideline.
resultsFor 17 out of 20 challenges, ChatGPT was able to give recommendations on the management of patients with brain abscess, including grade of evidence and strength of recommendation. Without data prompting, 70% of questions were answered very similar to the guideline recommendation. In the answers that differed from the guideline recommendations, no patient hazard was present. Data input slightly improved the clarity of ChatGPT's recommendations, but, however, led to less correct answers including two recommendations that directly contradicted the guideline, being associated with the possibility of a hazard to the patient.
conclusionChatGPT seems to be able to rapidly gather information on brain abscesses and give recommendations on key questions about their management in most cases. Nevertheless, single responses could possibly harm the patients. Thus, the expertise of an expert committee remains inevitable.
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.