ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2024
The Consistency and Quality of ChatGPT Responses Compared to Clinical Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer: A Delphi Approach.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Models Meet Gynecologic Ultrasound: Advancing the Characterization of ADNEXal Masses.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Applications of Large Language Models in Ovarian Cancer Management: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- The Performance of Artificial Intelligence in One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Surgery: Comparative Efficacy of ChatGPT-4.0, ChatGPT-Omni, and Gemini AI.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn recent years, generative Artificial Intelligence models, such as ChatGPT, have increasingly been utilized in healthcare. Despite acknowledging the high potential of AI models in terms of quick access to sources and formulating responses to a clinical question, the results obtained using these models still require validation through comparison with established clinical guidelines. This study compares the responses of the AI model to eight clinical questions with the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines for ovarian cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe authors used the Delphi method to evaluate responses from ChatGPT and the AIOM guidelines. An expert panel of healthcare professionals assessed responses based on clarity, consistency, comprehensiveness, usability, and quality using a five-point Likert scale. The GRADE methodology assessed the evidence quality and the recommendations' strength.
resultsA survey involving 14 physicians revealed that the AIOM guidelines consistently scored higher averages compared to the AI models, with a statistically significant difference. Post hoc tests showed that AIOM guidelines significantly differed from all AI models, with no significant difference among the AI models.
conclusionsWhile AI models can provide rapid responses, they must match established clinical guidelines regarding clarity, consistency, comprehensiveness, usability, and quality. These findings underscore the importance of relying on expert-developed guidelines in clinical decision-making and highlight potential areas for AI model improvement.
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.