Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38435177›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Generative Artificial Intelligence in Patient Education: ChatGPT Takes on Hypertension Questions.

Ahmed Almagazzachi, Ahmed Mustafa, Ashkan Eighaei Sedeh, Andres E Vazquez Gonzalez, Anastasiia Polianovskaia, Muhanad Abood, Ameer Abdelrahman, Veronica Muyolema Arce, Talar Acob, Bushra Saleem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Accuracy and Reliability of ChatGPT in Answering Patient Questions About Lung Cancer and Its Surgery: An Expert Panel Evaluation by Thoracic Surgeons.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A multi-layer retrieval-augmented large language model framework for enhancing hypertension education.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. ChatGPT and Gemini in warfarin counseling.Croatian medical journal · 2026
    Article
  17. Evaluating ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 for Patient Education in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Radiotherapy: a Comparative Analysis.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    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

10 authors.

Ahmed AlmagazzachiInternal Medicine, Capital Health System, Trenton, USA.
Ahmed MustafaInternal Medicine, Capital Health System, Trenton, USA.
Ashkan Eighaei SedehInternal Medicine, Capital Health System, Trenton, USA.
Andres E Vazquez GonzalezInternal Medicine, Capital Health System, Trenton, USA.
Anastasiia PolianovskaiaInternal Medicine, Capital Health System, Trenton, USA.
Muhanad AboodInternal Medicine, Capital Health System, Trenton, USA.
Ameer AbdelrahmanInternal Medicine, Capital Health System, Trenton, USA.
Veronica Muyolema ArceInternal Medicine, Capital Health System, Trenton, USA.
Talar AcobInternal Medicine Residency Program, Capital Health Regional Medical Center, Trenton, USA.
Bushra SaleemInternal Medicine, Capital Health System, Trenton, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Uncontrolled hypertension significantly contributes to the development and deterioration of various medical conditions, such as myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease, and cerebrovascular events. Despite being the most common preventable risk factor for all-cause mortality, only a fraction of affected individuals maintain their blood pressure in the desired range. In recent times, there has been a growing reliance on online platforms for medical information. While providing a convenient source of information, differentiating reliable from unreliable information can be daunting for the layperson, and false information can potentially hinder timely diagnosis and management of medical conditions. The surge in accessibility of generative artificial intelligence (GeAI) technology has led to increased use in obtaining health-related information. This has sparked debates among healthcare providers about the potential for misuse and misinformation while recognizing the role of GeAI in improving health literacy. This study aims to investigate the accuracy of AI-generated information specifically related to hypertension. Additionally, it seeks to explore the reproducibility of information provided by GeAI. Method A nonhuman-subject qualitative study was devised to evaluate the accuracy of information provided by ChatGPT regarding hypertension and its secondary complications. Frequently asked questions on hypertension were compiled by three study staff, internal medicine residents at an ACGME-accredited program, and then reviewed by a physician experienced in treating hypertension, resulting in a final set of 100 questions. Each question was posed to ChatGPT three times, once by each study staff, and the majority response was then assessed against the recommended guidelines. A board-certified internal medicine physician with over eight years of experience further reviewed the responses and categorized them into two classes based on their clinical appropriateness: appropriate (in line with clinical recommendations) and inappropriate (containing errors). Descriptive statistical analysis was employed to assess ChatGPT responses for accuracy and reproducibility. Result Initially, a pool of 130 questions was gathered, of which a final set of 100 questions was selected for the purpose of this study. When assessed against acceptable standard responses, ChatGPT responses were found to be appropriate in 92.5% of cases and inappropriate in 7.5%. Furthermore, ChatGPT had a reproducibility score of 93%, meaning that it could consistently reproduce answers that conveyed similar meanings across multiple runs. Conclusion ChatGPT showcased commendable accuracy in addressing commonly asked questions about hypertension. These results underscore the potential of GeAI in providing valuable information to patients. However, continued research and refinement are essential to evaluate further the reliability and broader applicability of ChatGPT within the medical field.

Indexed as

ai in cardiologyartificial intelligence in medicinecardiology researchchatgptgeneral internal medicinegenerative aihypertensionpatient education

Identifiers

PMID38435177
PMCPMC10909311

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.