ArticleInfection2025
Assessing ChatGPT's theoretical knowledge and prescriptive accuracy in bacterial infections: a comparative study with infectious diseases residents and specialists.
Article in Infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effect of large language model on diagnostic accuracy and clinical completeness among nephrology fellows managing transplant infection.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- ChatGPT in urogynecology: Comparing large language model responses to human experts.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Infectious Diseases: A Systemic Review.Research square · 2026Article
- The Future of Antibiotics and Artificial Intelligence: Some Thoughts from Discovery to Bedside.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- Telemedicine in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Narrative Review of Clinical Applications, Outcomes and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A Theoretical Framework forInfection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Role of artificial intelligence in ICU therapeutic decision-making for severe infections.Current opinion in critical care · 2025Review
- Change of Heart: Can Artificial Intelligence Transform Infective Endocarditis Management?Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Antibiotics and Artificial Intelligence: Clinical Considerations on a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Article
- Advantages and limitations of large language models for antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2025Review
- Assessing the clinical support capabilities of ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini in managing lumbar disc herniation.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- The Role of ChatGPT and AI Chatbots in Optimizing Antibiotic Therapy: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Can we rely on artificial intelligence to guide antimicrobial therapy? A systematic literature review.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Integrating artificial intelligence into veterinary education: student perspectives.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Study Group for Artificial Intelligence and Digitalisation consensus statements on key aspects in the interaction of clinical microbiologists and infectious disease specialists with general-purpose large language model-based systems: project protocol.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
- Article
- Enhancing AI Chatbot Responses in Health Care: The SMART Prompt Structure in Head and Neck Surgery.OTO openArticle
- Assessing the accuracy and clinical utility of GPT-4O in abnormal blood cell morphology recognition.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAdvancements in Artificial Intelligence(AI) have made platforms like ChatGPT increasingly relevant in medicine. This study assesses ChatGPT's utility in addressing bacterial infection-related questions and antibiogram-based clinical cases.
methodsThis study involved a collaborative effort involving infectious disease (ID) specialists and residents. A group of experts formulated six true/false, six open-ended questions, and six clinical cases with antibiograms for four types of infections (endocarditis, pneumonia, intra-abdominal infections, and bloodstream infection) for a total of 96 questions. The questions were submitted to four senior residents and four specialists in ID and inputted into ChatGPT-4 and a trained version of ChatGPT-4. A total of 720 responses were obtained and reviewed by a blinded panel of experts in antibiotic treatments. They evaluated the responses for accuracy and completeness, the ability to identify correct resistance mechanisms from antibiograms, and the appropriateness of antibiotics prescriptions.
resultsNo significant difference was noted among the four groups for true/false questions, with approximately 70% correct answers. The trained ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-4 offered more accurate and complete answers to the open-ended questions than both the residents and specialists. Regarding the clinical case, we observed a lower accuracy from ChatGPT-4 to recognize the correct resistance mechanism. ChatGPT-4 tended not to prescribe newer antibiotics like cefiderocol or imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam, favoring less recommended options like colistin. Both trained- ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-4 recommended longer than necessary treatment periods (p-value = 0.022).
conclusionsThis study highlights ChatGPT's capabilities and limitations in medical decision-making, specifically regarding bacterial infections and antibiogram analysis. While ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in answering theoretical questions, it did not consistently align with expert decisions in clinical case management. Despite these limitations, the potential of ChatGPT as a supportive tool in ID education and preliminary analysis is evident. However, it should not replace expert consultation, especially in complex clinical decision-making.
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.