ArticleScientific reports2024
Disparities in medical recommendations from AI-based chatbots across different countries/regions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence chatbots in endodontic education-Concepts and potential applications.International endodontic journal · 2026Review
- Korean Medical Consultation With Open-Weight Large Language Models: Pilot Comparative Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation With Metadata Filtering.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Perceptions and Attitudes of Medical Students Toward the Integration of Large Language Models in Medical Education: Cross-Sectional Survey in China.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- AI without representation is just inequity at scale: on the exportation of unrepresentative artificial intelligence models to the Global South.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Transforming thyroid disease education: AI and virtual technologies in residency training.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Article
- Technological Evolution and Research Trends of Intelligent Question-Answering Systems in Healthcare.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Strengthening the TB response with artificial intelligence and the right to health.IJTLD open · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 obstetric and gynecological knowledge.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Performance of Artificial Intelligence in One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Surgery: Comparative Efficacy of ChatGPT-4.0, ChatGPT-Omni, and Gemini AI.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
- PICOT questions and search strategies formulation: A novel approach using artificial intelligence automation.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025Article
- Breaking barriers: harnessing artificial intelligence for a stigma-free, efficient HIV prevention assessment among adults in South Africa.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-large language models (AI-LLMs) for reliable and accurate cardiotocography (CTG) interpretation in obstetric practice.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Assessment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in decision-making support for gynecologic oncology.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study explores disparities and opportunities in healthcare information provided by AI chatbots. We focused on recommendations for adjuvant therapy in endometrial cancer, analyzing responses across four regions (Indonesia, Nigeria, Taiwan, USA) and three platforms (Bard, Bing, ChatGPT-3.5). Utilizing previously published cases, we asked identical questions to chatbots from each location within a 24-h window. Responses were evaluated in a double-blinded manner on relevance, clarity, depth, focus, and coherence by ten experts in endometrial cancer. Our analysis revealed significant variations across different countries/regions (p < 0.001). Interestingly, Bing's responses in Nigeria consistently outperformed others (p < 0.05), excelling in all evaluation criteria (p < 0.001). Bard also performed better in Nigeria compared to other regions (p < 0.05), consistently surpassing them across all categories (p < 0.001, with relevance reaching p < 0.01). Notably, Bard's overall scores were significantly higher than those of ChatGPT-3.5 and Bing in all locations (p < 0.001). These findings highlight disparities and opportunities in the quality of AI-powered healthcare information based on user location and platform. This emphasizes the necessity for more research and development to guarantee equal access to trustworthy medical information through AI technologies.
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.