Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38964828›Full record

ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2024

Assessment of the information provided by ChatGPT regarding exercise for patients with type 2 diabetes: a pilot study.

Seung Min Chung, Min Cheol Chang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Seung Min ChungDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, Daegu, The Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3336-7557
Min Cheol ChangDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, Daegu, The Republic of Korea wheel633@ynu.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7629-7213

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe assessed the feasibility of ChatGPT for patients with type 2 diabetes seeking information about exercise.

methodsIn this pilot study, two physicians with expertise in diabetes care and rehabilitative treatment in Republic of Korea discussed and determined the 14 most asked questions on exercise for managing type 2 diabetes by patients in clinical practice. Each question was inputted into ChatGPT (V.4.0), and the answers from ChatGPT were assessed. The Likert scale was calculated for each category of validity (1-4), safety (1-4) and utility (1-4) based on position statements of the American Diabetes Association and American College of Sports Medicine.

resultsRegarding validity, 4 of 14 ChatGPT (28.6%) responses were scored as 3, indicating accurate but incomplete information. The other 10 responses (71.4%) were scored as 4, indicating complete accuracy with complete information. Safety and utility scored 4 (no danger and completely useful) for all 14 ChatGPT responses.

conclusionChatGPT can be used as supplementary educational material for diabetic exercise. However, users should be aware that ChatGPT may provide incomplete answers to some questions on exercise for type 2 diabetes.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2ExerciseExercise TherapyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPilot ProjectsRepublic of KoreaSurveys and QuestionnairesArtificial intelligenceMedical Informatics

Identifiers

PMID38964828
PMCPMC11227747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.