ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2024
Digesting Digital Health: A Study of Appropriateness and Readability of ChatGPT-Generated Gastroenterological Information.
Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT in responding to myotonic dystrophy type 1 patient inquiries: a specialist physician-based study.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Assessing the Accuracy and Readability of Generative Artificial Intelligence Responses for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating GPT-4 Responses on Scars or Keloids for Patient Education: Large Language Model Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Utility of ChatGPT-4o in Creating Patient Handouts in Ophthalmology: A Comparison With American Academy of Ophthalmology Educational Materials.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the accuracy, reliability, and readability of AI chatbots in delivering postpartum depression information.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- The information challenge in public health crises: a study on the reliability and readability of information provided by large language model for thunderstorm asthma.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Perceptions and Attitudes of Chinese Oncologists Toward Endorsing AI-Driven Chatbots for Health Information Seeking Among Patients with Cancer: Phenomenological Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Effects of education level on natural language processing in cardiovascular health communication.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The Potential Clinical Utility of the Customized Large Language Model in Gastroenterology: A Pilot Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
introductionThe advent of artificial intelligence-powered large language models capable of generating interactive responses to intricate queries marks a groundbreaking development in how patients access medical information. Our aim was to evaluate the appropriateness and readability of gastroenterological information generated by Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT).
methodsWe analyzed responses generated by ChatGPT to 16 dialog-based queries assessing symptoms and treatments for gastrointestinal conditions and 13 definition-based queries on prevalent topics in gastroenterology. Three board-certified gastroenterologists evaluated output appropriateness with a 5-point Likert-scale proxy measurement of currency, relevance, accuracy, comprehensiveness, clarity, and urgency/next steps. Outputs with a score of 4 or 5 in all 6 categories were designated as "appropriate." Output readability was assessed with Flesch Reading Ease score, Flesch-Kinkaid Reading Level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook scores.
resultsChatGPT responses to 44% of the 16 dialog-based and 69% of the 13 definition-based questions were deemed appropriate, and the proportion of appropriate responses within the 2 groups of questions was not significantly different ( P = 0.17). Notably, none of ChatGPT's responses to questions related to gastrointestinal emergencies were designated appropriate. The mean readability scores showed that outputs were written at a college-level reading proficiency. DISCUSSION: ChatGPT can produce generally fitting responses to gastroenterological medical queries, but responses were constrained in appropriateness and readability, which limits the current utility of this large language model. Substantial development is essential before these models can be unequivocally endorsed as reliable sources of medical information.
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.