ArticleCureus2024
Generative Artificial Intelligence in Patient Education: ChatGPT Takes on Hypertension Questions.
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.
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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large Language Models in Cardiology: Systematic Review.JMIR cardio · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Application of AI in Hypertension Health Education: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional evaluation of Large Language Model answers to dental questions.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance and Workup Efficiency of Large Language Models in Secondary Hypertension: A Blinded Comparative Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Tools in Pre-Travel Health Consultations: A Scoping Review of Clinical Evidence, Implementation Gaps, and Emerging Opportunities.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026Review
- LLM research on public biosignals data is needed to protect patients.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- 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 · 2026Article
- Improving self-care behaviors in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using a knowledge-based intelligent self-care system: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Patient and clinician engagement with generative artificial intelligence (GenAI): A scoping review of implications for patient-centered communication.Patient education and counseling · 2026Article
- A multi-layer retrieval-augmented large language model framework for enhancing hypertension education.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Article
- Assessment of ChatGPT-4.0 versus ChatGPT-Mini in Generating Guideline-Based Hypertension Content.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2026Article
- AI in Patient Care: Evaluating Large Language Model Performance Against Evidence-Based Guidelines for Pulmonary Embolism.Thoracic research and practice · 2026Article
- Utility of ChatGPT in generating accurate client handouts for common veterinary internal medicine diseases.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Accuracy, Usefulness, and Safety of ChatGPT for Caregivers Seeking Information on Congenital Muscular Torticollis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- ChatGPT and Gemini in warfarin counseling.Croatian medical journal · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Expert evaluation of GPT-4o and Gemini responses to patient questions on carotid endarterectomy.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Performance of Large Language Models in Analyzing Common Hypertension Scenarios.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2026Article
- Exploring the application of generative artificial intelligence in nursing: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.