ArticleHeliyon2024
Assessing the ChatGPT aptitude: A competent and effective Dermatology doctor?
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Role of AI-Generated Clinical Image Descriptions in Enhancing Teledermatology Diagnosis: A Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy and adeptness of ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0 in the precise diagnosis and management of conditions like atopic dermatitis and Autoimmune blistering skin diseases (AIBD) remain to be elucidated. So this study examined the accuracy and effectiveness of the ChatGPT responses related to understanding, therapies, and specific cases of these two conditions. Method: Firstly, the responses provided by ChatGPTs to a set of 50 questionnaires underwent evaluation by five distinct dermatologists, with complete adjudication of the third-party reviewer. The comparative analysis included the evaluative efficacy of both ChatGPT3.5 and ChatGPT4.0 against the diagnostic abilities exhibited by three distinct cohorts of qualified clinical professionals. And then, an examination was conducted to assess the diagnostic proficiency of ChatGPT3.5 and ChatGPT4.0 in the context of diagnosing specific instances of skin blistering autoimmune diseases. Results: In assessing the proficiency of ChatGPTs in generating responses related to fundamental knowledge about AD it is noteworthy that both versions of ChatGPTs, despite their lack of specialized training on medical databases, exhibited a commendable capacity to yield solutions that exhibited a substantial degree of concurrence with evidence-based medical information. Accordingly we observed that the performance of ChatGPT-4.0 beyond that of the ChatGPT-3.5. However, it it crucial to emphasize that ChatGPT-4.0 did not show the ability to offer answers surpassing those provided by associate senior, and senior medical professionals. In the assessment designed to determine the proficiency of ChatGPTs in recognizing particular type of AIBD, it is evident that both ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 demonstrated inadequacy in providing responses that are both precise and accurate for each individual occurrence of this skin condition. Conclusion: Both ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 satisfactory for addressing fundamental inquiries related to atopic dermatitis, however they prove insufficient for diagnosing AIBD. The progress of ChatGPT in achieving utility within the professional medical domain remains a considerable journey ahead.
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.