Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38305909›Full record

ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2024

Delayed diagnosis of a transient ischemic attack caused by ChatGPT.

Jonathan A Saenger, Jonathan Hunger, Andreas Boss, Johannes Richter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Ethical Considerations in Personal Health Large Language Models.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Large Language Models in Neurological Practice: Real-World Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. The double-edged nature of ChatGPT in self-diagnosis.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2024
    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.

Jonathan A SaengerDiagnostic and interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. jonathan.saenger@usz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8667-3884
Jonathan HungerDepartment of Internal Medicine, GZO Hospital Wetzikon, Wetzikon, Switzerland.
Andreas BossDiagnostic and interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. andreas.boss@gzo.ch.
Johannes RichterInstitute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, GZO Hospital Wetzikon, Wetzikon, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Techniques of artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly used in the treatment of patients, such as providing a diagnosis in radiological imaging, improving workflow by triaging patients or providing an expert opinion based on clinical symptoms; however, such AI techniques also hold intrinsic risks as AI algorithms may point in the wrong direction and constitute a black box without explaining the reason for the decision-making process.This article outlines a case where an erroneous ChatGPT diagnosis, relied upon by the patient to evaluate symptoms, led to a significant treatment delay and a potentially life-threatening situation. With this case, we would like to point out the typical risks posed by the widespread application of AI tools not intended for medical decision-making.

Indexed as

Ischemic Attack, TransientAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceClinical Decision-MakingDelayed DiagnosisHumansAIArtificial IntelligenceChatbotChatGPTNeurologyStroke

Identifiers

PMID38305909
PMCPMC11006786

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.