ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Evaluating ChatGPT-4's performance as a digital health advisor for otosclerosis surgery.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Turing problems in otolaryngology: a scoping review of the principal challenges of artificial ıntelligence and large language models.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Review
- Large Language Models as Health Information Tools: Patient Use and Trust in Otolaryngology.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence -assisted tinnitus support with ChatGPT-4.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative performance of AI chatbots in dental implantology: insights and limitations.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Performance of AI-Chatbots to Common Temporomandibular Joint Disorders (TMDs) Patient Queries: Accuracy, Completeness, Reliability and Readability.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Article
- Readability of Chatbot Responses in Prostate Cancer and Urological Care: Objective Metrics Versus Patient Perceptions.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Applications of Natural Language Processing in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Evaluating the quality and readability of ChatGPT-generated patient-facing medical information in rhinology.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Assessment of readability, reliability, and quality of ChatGPT®, BARD®, Gemini®, Copilot®, Perplexity® responses on palliative care.Medicine · 2024Observational
- Is ChatGPT 3.5 smarter than Otolaryngology trainees? A comparison study of board style exam questions.PloS one · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT-4, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, in providing accurate and comprehensible information to patients regarding otosclerosis surgery. Methods: On October 20, 2023, 15 hypothetical questions were posed to ChatGPT-4 to simulate physician-patient interactions about otosclerosis surgery. Responses were evaluated by three independent ENT specialists using the DISCERN scoring system. The readability was evaluated using multiple indices: Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (Gunning FOG), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). Results: The responses from ChatGPT-4 received DISCERN scores ranging from poor to excellent, with an overall score of 50.7 ± 8.2. The readability analysis indicated that the texts were above the 6th-grade level, suggesting they may not be easily comprehensible to the average reader. There was a significant positive correlation between the referees' scores. Despite providing correct information in over 90% of the cases, the study highlights concerns regarding the potential for incomplete or misleading answers and the high readability level of the responses. Conclusion: While ChatGPT-4 shows potential in delivering health information accurately, its utility is limited by the level of readability of its responses. The study underscores the need for continuous improvement in AI systems to ensure the delivery of information that is both accurate and accessible to patients with varying levels of health literacy. Healthcare professionals should supervise the use of such technologies to enhance patient education and care.
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.