ArticlePatient preference and adherence2024
Assessment of the Reliability and Clinical Applicability of ChatGPT's Responses to Patients' Common Queries About Rosacea.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of the use of digital technologies in the preliminary diagnosis of dermatological diseases: a systematic review.Archives of dermatological research · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating the quality of artificial intelligence responses to psoriasis-related clinical and patient questions: a comparative study of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of ChatGPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and DeepSeek-V3.2 for Rosacea-Related Information: Accuracy, Reliability, Readability, and Reference Hallucinations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating evidence-based health information from generative AI using a cross-sectional study with laypeople seeking screening information.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing the quality of ChatGPT's responses to questions related to radiofrequency ablation for varicose veins.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2025Article
- Assessing the Impact of ChatGPT in Dermatology: A Comprehensive Rapid Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Can Artificial Intelligence "Hold" a Dermoscope?-The Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot to Translate the Dermoscopic Language.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Large language models in patient education: a scoping review of applications in medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Artificial intelligence chatbot, particularly ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer), is capable of analyzing human input and generating human-like responses, which shows its potential application in healthcare. People with rosacea often have questions about alleviating symptoms and daily skin-care, which is suitable for ChatGPT to response. This study aims to assess the reliability and clinical applicability of ChatGPT 3.5 in responding to patients' common queries about rosacea and to evaluate the extent of ChatGPT's coverage in dermatology resources. Methods: Based on a qualitative analysis of the literature on the queries from rosacea patients, we have extracted 20 questions of patients' greatest concerns, covering four main categories: treatment, triggers and diet, skincare, and special manifestations of rosacea. Each question was inputted into ChatGPT separately for three rounds of question-and-answer conversations. The generated answers will be evaluated by three experienced dermatologists with postgraduate degrees and over five years of clinical experience in dermatology, to assess their reliability and applicability for clinical practice. Results: The analysis results indicate that the reviewers unanimously agreed that ChatGPT achieved a high reliability of 92.22% to 97.78% in responding to patients' common queries about rosacea. Additionally, almost all answers were applicable for supporting rosacea patient education, with a clinical applicability ranging from 98.61% to 100.00%. The consistency of the expert ratings was excellent (all significance levels were less than 0.05), with a consistency coefficient of 0.404 for content reliability and 0.456 for clinical practicality, indicating significant consistency in the results and a high level of agreement among the expert ratings. Conclusion: ChatGPT 3.5 exhibits excellent reliability and clinical applicability in responding to patients' common queries about rosacea. This artificial intelligence tool is applicable for supporting rosacea patient education.
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.