ArticleTremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.)2024
Assessing ChatGPT Ability to Answer Frequently Asked Questions About Essential Tremor.
Article in Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of a multi-metric framework for evaluating patient-facing AI communication in cosmetic dentistry: an exploratory proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- The use of artificial intelligence in healthcare as perceived by the citizens and patients: a narrative review of the literature.European journal of public health · 2025Review
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
Background: Large-language models (LLMs) driven by artificial intelligence allow people to engage in direct conversations about their health. The accuracy and readability of the answers provided by ChatGPT, the most famous LLM, about Essential Tremor (ET), one of the commonest movement disorders, have not yet been evaluated. Methods: Answers given by ChatGPT to 10 questions about ET were evaluated by 5 professionals and 15 laypeople with a score ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) in terms of clarity, relevance, accuracy (only for professionals), comprehensiveness, and overall value of the response. We further calculated the readability of the answers. Results: ChatGPT answers received relatively positive evaluations, with median scores ranging between 4 and 5, by both groups and independently from the type of question. However, there was only moderate agreement between raters, especially in the group of professionals. Moreover, readability levels were poor for all examined answers. Discussion: ChatGPT provided relatively accurate and relevant answers, with some variability as judged by the group of professionals suggesting that the degree of literacy about ET has influenced the ratings and, indirectly, that the quality of information provided in clinical practice is also variable. Moreover, the readability of the answer provided by ChatGPT was found to be poor. LLMs will likely play a significant role in the future; therefore, health-related content generated by these tools should be monitored.
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.