ArticleJournal of medical systems2024
Comparing ChatGPT and a Single Anesthesiologist's Responses to Common Patient Questions: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey of a Panel of Anesthesiologists.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions of Large Language Models in Health Care Communication: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Five Large Language Models for Parental Education in Pediatric Anesthesia: Reliability and Readability Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Foundation models in healthcare: a comprehensive review from technical advances to clinical translation.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- An evaluation of DeepSeek and healthcare professionals' Q&A capabilities in improving patient-family satisfaction in the ICU.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Comparison of Multiple State-of-the-Art Large Language Models for Patient Education Prior to CT and MRI Examinations.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- ChatOCT: Embedded Clinical Decision Support Systems for Optical Coherence Tomography in Offline and Resource-Limited Settings.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Large language model chatbots as sources of pediatric anesthesia health advice: An evaluation of reliability and readability.Digital healthArticle
- Evaluating ChatGPT-4 as a digital patient education tool in anesthesia: A multi-rater quality assessment.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increased patient access to electronic medical records and resources has resulted in higher volumes of health-related questions posed to clinical staff, while physicians' rising clinical workloads have resulted in less time for comprehensive, thoughtful responses to patient questions. Artificial intelligence chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT could help anesthesiologists efficiently respond to electronic patient inquiries, but their ability to do so is unclear. A cross-sectional exploratory survey-based study comprised of 100 anesthesia-related patient question/response sets based on two fictitious simple clinical scenarios was performed. Each question was answered by an independent board-certified anesthesiologist and ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 model, August 3, 2023 version). The responses were randomized and evaluated via survey by three blinded board-certified anesthesiologists for various quality and empathy measures. On a 5-point Likert scale, ChatGPT received similar overall quality ratings (4.2 vs. 4.1, p = .81) and significantly higher overall empathy ratings (3.7 vs. 3.4, p < .01) compared to the anesthesiologist. ChatGPT underperformed the anesthesiologist regarding rate of responses in agreement with scientific consensus (96.6% vs. 99.3%, p = .02) and possibility of harm (4.7% vs. 1.7%, p = .04), but performed similarly in other measures (percentage of responses with inappropriate/incorrect information (5.7% vs. 2.7%, p = .07) and missing information (10.0% vs. 7.0%, p = .19)). In conclusion, LLMs show great potential in healthcare, but additional improvement is needed to decrease the risk of patient harm and reduce the need for close physician oversight. Further research with more complex clinical scenarios, clinicians, and live patients is necessary to validate their role in healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39172169What 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.