ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Assessing ChatGPT4 with and without retrieval-augmented generation in anticoagulation management for gastrointestinal procedures.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Improving large language model applications in biomedicine with retrieval-augmented generation: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and clinical development guidelines.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Pooled it
- An automatic consult reply system for therapeutic plasma exchange using retrieval-augmented generation.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
- ChatGPT and Gemini in warfarin counseling.Croatian medical journal · 2026Article
- Transforming endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: the role of artificial intelligence in pre-operative planning, intraoperative navigation, and post-operative risk prediction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- TCM-DiffRAG: personalized syndrome differentiation reasoning method for traditional Chinese medicine based on knowledge graph and chain of thought.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the appropriateness and safety of generative AI in delivering lifestyle guidance for atrial fibrillation patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Large language models in clinical trials: applications, technical advances, and future directions.BMC medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Reliability of OpenAI's ChatGPT-4 in Providing Pre-colonoscopy Patient Guidance.Cureus · 2025Article
- Thyro-GenAI: A Chatbot Using Retrieval-Augmented Generative Models for Personalized Thyroid Disease Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- An LLM-Powered Clinical Calculator Chatbot Backed by Verifiable Clinical Calculators and their Metadata.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In view of the growing complexity of managing anticoagulation for patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) procedures, this study evaluated ChatGPT-4's ability to provide accurate medical guidance, comparing it with its prior artificial intelligence (AI) models (ChatGPT-3.5) and the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-supported model (ChatGPT4-RAG). Methods: Thirty-six anticoagulation-related questions, based on professional guidelines, were answered by ChatGPT-4. Nine gastroenterologists assessed these responses for accuracy and relevance. ChatGPT-4's performance was also compared to that of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT4-RAG. Additionally, a survey was conducted to understand gastroenterologists' perceptions of ChatGPT-4. Results: ChatGPT-4's responses showed significantly better accuracy and coherence compared to ChatGPT-3.5, with 30.5% of responses fully accurate and 47.2% generally accurate. ChatGPT4-RAG demonstrated a higher ability to integrate current information, achieving 75% full accuracy. Notably, for diagnostic and therapeutic esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 51.8% of responses were fully accurate; for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with and without stent placement, 42.8% were fully accurate; and for diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy, 50% were fully accurate. Conclusions: ChatGPT4-RAG significantly advances anticoagulation management in endoscopic procedures, offering reliable and precise medical guidance. However, medicolegal considerations mean that a 75% full accuracy rate remains inadequate for independent clinical decision-making. AI may be more appropriately utilized to support and confirm clinicians' decisions, rather than replace them. Further evaluation is essential to maintain patient confidentiality and the integrity of the physician-patient relationship.
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.