ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2024
ChatGPT4's proficiency in addressing patients' questions on systemic lupus erythematosus: a blinded comparative study with specialists.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI chatbots versus human healthcare professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of empathy in patient care.British medical bulletin · 2025Pooled it
- Development and Nationwide Multicentre Evaluation of Guideline-Grounded Large Language Model Chatbots to Support Patient Self-Management and Education in Rheumatology.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- A patient-derived benchmark for evaluating large language models in connective tissue diseases: blinded multi-stakeholder assessment and guideline comparison.Rheumatology international · 2026Observational
- Comparison of online radiologists and large language model chatbots in responding to common radiology-related questions in Chinese: a cross-sectional comparative analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation of artificial ıntelligence use in ankylosing spondylitis with ChatGPT-4: patient and physician perspectives.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Article
- Assessing Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer-4's clinical utility in acute compartment syndrome: a comprehensive evaluation of accuracy, completeness, and readability.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2025Article
- Rheumatology in the digital health era: status quo and quo vadis?Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2024Review
- Comparative performance analysis of large language models: ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
13 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots like ChatGPT4 in specialized medical consultations, particularly in rheumatology, remains underexplored. This study compares the proficiency of ChatGPT4' responses with practicing rheumatologists to inquiries from patients with SLE.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we curated 95 frequently asked questions (FAQs), including 55 in Chinese and 40 in English. Responses for FAQs from ChatGPT4 and five rheumatologists were scored separately by a panel of rheumatologists and a group of patients with SLE across six domains (scientific validity, logical consistency, comprehensibility, completeness, satisfaction level and empathy) on a 0-10 scale (a score of 0 indicates entirely incorrect responses, while 10 indicates accurate and comprehensive answers).
resultsRheumatologists' scoring revealed that ChatGPT4-generated responses outperformed those from rheumatologists in satisfaction level and empathy, with mean differences of 0.537 (95% CI, 0.252-0.823; P < 0.01) and 0.460 (95% CI, 0.227-0.693; P < 0.01), respectively. From the SLE patients' perspective, ChatGPT4-generated responses were comparable to the rheumatologist-provided answers in all six domains. Subgroup analysis revealed ChatGPT4 responses were more logically consistent and complete regardless of language and exhibited greater comprehensibility, satisfaction and empathy in Chinese. However, ChatGPT4 responses were inferior in comprehensibility for English FAQs.
conclusionChatGPT4 demonstrated comparable, possibly better in certain domains, to address FAQs from patients with SLE, when compared with the answers provided by specialists. This study showed the potential of applying ChatGPT4 to improve consultation in SLE patients.
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.