ArticleIndian journal of palliative care
Debunking Palliative Care Myths: Assessing the Performance of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots (ChatGPT vs. Google Gemini).
Article in Indian journal of palliative care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots (ChatGPT vs Google Gemini) for Informed Consent Quality: A Cross-sectional Evaluation.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Ethical Challenges and Opportunities of AI in End-of-Life Palliative Care: Integrative Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Review
- RE: Debunking Palliative Care Myths: Assessing the Performance of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots (ChatGPT vs. Google Gemini).Indian journal of palliative careArticle
- Artificial Intelligence: A Boon to Palliative Care Providers and Cancer Patients?Indian journal of palliative careArticle
- Article
- Exploring evaluation measures of large language models for family caregiver use: A scoping review.Digital healthReview
- Evaluating Chatbots as Nursing Assistants in Palliative Care: A Narrative Review.Indian journal of palliative careReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Palliative care plays a crucial role in comprehensive healthcare, yet misconceptions among patients and caregivers hinder access to services. Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots offer potential solutions for debunking myths and providing accurate information. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of AI chatbots, ChatGPT and Google Gemini, in debunking palliative care myths. Thirty statements reflecting common palliative care misconceptions were compiled. ChatGPT and Google Gemini generated responses to each statement, which were evaluated by a palliative care expert for accuracy. Sensitivity, positive predictive value, accuracy, and precision were calculated to assess chatbot performance. ChatGPT accurately classified 28 out of 30 statements, achieving a true-positive rate of 93.3% and a true-negative rate of 3.3%. Google Gemini achieved perfect accuracy, correctly classifying all 30 statements. Statistical tests showed no significant difference between chatbots' classifications. Both ChatGPT and Google Gemini demonstrated high accuracy in debunking palliative care myths. These findings suggest that AI chatbots have the potential to effectively dispel misconceptions and improve patient education and awareness in palliative care.
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.