ArticleJAMIA open2024
Evaluating ChatGPT's moral competence in health care-related ethical problems.
Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing AI and human moral reasoning: context-sensitive patterns beyond utilitarian bias.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Artificial intelligence tools such as Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) have been used for many health care-related applications; however, there is a lack of research on their capabilities for evaluating morally and/or ethically complex medical decisions. The objective of this study was to assess the moral competence of ChatGPT. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was performed between May 2023 and July 2023 using scenarios from the Moral Competence Test (MCT). Numerical responses were collected from ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 to assess individual and overall stage scores, including C-index and overall moral stage preference. Descriptive analysis and 2-sided Student's Results: A total of 100 iterations of the MCT were performed and moral preference was found to be higher in the latter Kohlberg-derived arguments. ChatGPT 4.0 was found to have a higher overall moral stage preference (2.325 versus 1.755) when compared to ChatGPT 3.5. ChatGPT 4.0 was also found to have a statistically higher C-index score in comparison to ChatGPT 3.5 (29.03 ± 11.10 versus 19.32 ± 10.95, Discussion: ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 trended towards higher moral preference for the latter stages of Kohlberg's theory for both dilemmas with C-indices suggesting medium moral competence. However, both models showed moderate variation in C-index scores indicating inconsistency and further training is recommended. Conclusion: ChatGPT demonstrates medium moral competence and can evaluate arguments based on Kohlberg's theory of moral development. These findings suggest that future revisions of ChatGPT and other large language models could assist physicians in the decision-making process when encountering complex ethical scenarios.
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.