ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 Responses on Hyperlipidemia for Patient Education.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of Large Language Models When Answering Clinical Research Questions: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of AI-Generated Patient Education Materials for Bladder Training and Pelvic Floor Muscle Therapy: Comparison with an International Society Leaflet.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Can ChatGPT Be Trusted for Urologic Patient Education? A Comparative Study of Stress Urinary Incontinence-Related Information From Versions 3.5 and 4.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- "Can We Trust Them?" An Expert Evaluation of Large Language Models to Provide Sleep and Jet Lag Recommendations for Athletes.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Assessment of the efficacy of ChatGPT responses to bacterial species-specific questions in microbiology.Access microbiology · 2026Article
- ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok on familial mediterranean fever: are they trustworthy?Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Chatbots versus retina specialists in answering real-world retina questions.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- Applications of large language models in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Review
- Large language model evaluation in autoimmune disease clinical questions comparing ChatGPT 4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Gemini 1.5 pro.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing ChatGPT as a Medical Consultation Assistant for Chronic Hepatitis B: Cross-Language Study of English and Chinese.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Primary Prevention of Common Musculoskeletal Diseases.Cureus · 2024Article
- Large language models in patient education: a scoping review of applications in medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- How Successful Is AI in Developing Postsurgical Wound Care Education Material?Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Hyperlipidemia is prevalent worldwide and affects a significant number of US adults. It significantly contributes to ischemic heart disease and millions of deaths annually. With the increasing use of the internet for health information, tools like ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) have gained traction. ChatGPT version 4.0, launched in March 2023, offers enhanced features over its predecessor but requires a monthly fee. This study compares the accuracy, comprehensibility, and response length of the free and paid versions of ChatGPT for patient education on hyperlipidemia. Materials and methods ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 were prompted in three different ways and 25 questions from the Cleveland Clinic's frequently asked questions (FAQs) on hyperlipidemia. Prompts included no prompting (Form 1), patient-friendly prompting (Form 2), and physician-level prompting (Form 3). Responses were categorized as incorrect, partially correct, or correct. Additionally, the grade level and word count from each response were recorded for analysis. Results Overall, scoring frequencies for ChatGPT version 3.5 were: five (6.67%) incorrect, 18 partially correct (24%), and 52 (69.33%) correct. Scoring frequencies for ChatGPT version 4.0 were: one (1.33%) incorrect, 18 (24.00%) partially correct, and 56 (74.67%) correct. Correct answers did not significantly differ between ChatGPT version 3.5 and ChatGPT version 4.0 (p = 0.586). ChatGPT version 3.5 had a significantly higher grade reading level than version 4.0 (p = 0.0002). ChatGPT version 3.5 had a significantly higher word count than version 4.0 (p = 0.0073). Discussion There was no significant difference in accuracy between the free and paid versions of hyperlipidemia FAQs. Both versions provided accurate but sometimes partially complete responses. Version 4.0 offered more concise and readable information, aligning with the readability of most online medical resources despite exceeding the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) recommended eighth-grade reading level. The paid version demonstrated superior adaptability in tailoring responses based on the input. Conclusion Both versions of ChatGPT provide reliable medical information, with the paid version offering more adaptable and readable responses. Healthcare providers can recommend ChatGPT as a source of patient education, regardless of the version used. Future research should explore diverse question formulations and ChatGPT's handling of incorrect information.
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.