ArticleJournal of paediatrics and child health2025
Can ChatGPT provide quality information about fever in children?
Article in Journal of paediatrics and child health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Leveraging ChatGPT to strengthen pediatric healthcare systems: a systematic review.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Performance of ChatGPT-4o in Providing Information on Pediatric Inborn Errors of Immunity: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating AI-based breastfeeding chatbots: quality, readability, and reliability analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) systems hold great promise in improving medical care and health problems.
aimWe aimed to evaluate the answers by asking the most frequently asked questions to ChatGPT for the prediction and treatment of fever, which is a major problem in children.
methodsThe 50 questions most frequently asked about fever in children were determined, and we asked them to ChatGPT. We evaluated the responses using the quality and readability scales.
resultsWhile ChatGPT demonstrated good quality in its responses, the readability scale and the Patient Education Material Evaluation Tool (PEMAT) scale used with materials appearing on the site were also found to be successful. Among the scales in which we evaluated ChatGPT responses, a weak positive relationship was found between Gunning Fog (GFOG) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) scores (r = 0.379) and a significant and positive relationship was found between FGL and SMOG scores (r = 0.899).
conclusionThis study sheds light on the quality and readability of information regarding the presentation of AI tools, such as ChatGPT, regarding fever, a common complaint in children. We determined that the answers to the most frequently asked questions about fire were high-quality, reliable, easy to read and understandable.
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.