Trial reportFrontiers in public health2024
Assessing the utility of artificial intelligence throughout the triage outpatients: a prospective randomized controlled clinical study.
Trial report in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Initial-Visit Specialty Triage in Rare Diseases Using Large Language Models: Retrospective Benchmarking Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-based chatbot assistance in clinical decision-making for medically complex patients in oral surgery: a comparative study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluating AI performance in nephrology triage and subspecialty referrals.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mapping artificial intelligence models in emergency medicine: A scoping review on artificial intelligence performance in emergency care and education.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, there are still many patients who require outpatient triage assistance. ChatGPT, a natural language processing tool powered by artificial intelligence technology, is increasingly utilized in medicine. To facilitate and expedite patients' navigation to the appropriate department, we conducted an outpatient triage evaluation of ChatGPT. For this evaluation, we posed 30 highly representative and common outpatient questions to ChatGPT and scored its responses using a panel of five experienced doctors. The consistency of manual triage and ChatGPT triage was assessed by five experienced doctors, and statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-square test. The expert ratings of ChatGPT's answers to these 30 frequently asked questions revealed 17 responses earning very high scores (10 and 9.5 points), 7 earning high scores (9 points), and 6 receiving low scores (8 and 7 points). Additionally, we conducted a prospective cohort study in which 45 patients completed forms detailing gender, age, and symptoms. Triage was then performed by outpatient triage staff and ChatGPT. Among the 45 patients, we found a high level of agreement between manual triage and ChatGPT triage (consistency: 93.3-100%,
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.