ArticleDigital health
Generative artificial intelligence writing open notes: A mixed methods assessment of the functionality of GPT 3.5 and GPT 4.0.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- The benefits and future potential of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) on mental health: a Delphi study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- Empathic AI for Patient-Centered Cancer Care: A Scoping Review of Patient Navigation, Support, and Clinical Practice.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Investigating Placebos and Controls Used in Large Language Model-Based Chatbot Intervention Trials: Protocol for a Methodological Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Changes in Documentation After Implementing Open Notes in Mental Health Care: Pre-Post Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Placebo, Nocebo, and Machine Learning: How Generative AI Could Shape Patient Perception in Mental Health Care.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Health Care Professionals' Experiences and Opinions About Generative AI and Ambient Scribes in Clinical Documentation: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: Qualitative Study of UK General Practitioners' Views.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Big Data-Driven Health Portraits for Personalized Management in Noncommunicable Diseases: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- Triadic relations in healthcare: surveying physicians' perspectives on generative AI integration and its role on empathy, the placebo effect and patient care.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in medicine: a mixed-methods survey of UK general practitioners.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Speech and Language Therapy: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Clinical Applications and Outcomes.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
- General practitioners' opinions of generative artificial intelligence in the UK: An online survey.Digital healthArticle
- Review
- Article
- Psychiatrists' experiences and opinions of generative AI: An exploratory online mixed methods survey in Germany.Digital healthArticle
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
Background: Worldwide, patients are increasingly being offered access to their full online clinical records including the narrative reports written by clinicians (so-called "open notes"). Against these developments, there is growing interest in the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) such as OpenAI's ChatGPT to co-assist clinicians with patient-facing documentation. Objective: This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.5 and GPT 4.0 in generating three patient-facing clinical notes from fictional general practice narrative reports. Methods: On 1 October 2023 and 1 November 2023, we used ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 to generate notes for three validated fictional general practice notes, using a prompt in the style of a British primary care note for three commonly presented conditions: (1) type 2 diabetes, (2) major depressive disorder, and (3) a differential diagnosis for suspected bowel cancer. Outputs were analyzed for reading ease, sentiment analysis, empathy, and medical fidelity. Results: ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 wrote longer notes than the original, and embedded more second person pronouns, with ChatGPT 3.5 scoring higher on both. ChatGPT expanded abbreviations, but readability metrics showed that the notes required a higher reading proficiency, with ChatGPT 3.5 demanding the most advanced level. Across all notes, ChatGPT offered higher signatures of empathy across cognitive, compassion/sympathy, and prosocial cues. Medical fidelity ratings varied across all three cases with ChatGPT 4.0 rated superior. Conclusions: While ChatGPT improved sentiment and empathy metrics in the transformed notes, compared to the original they also required higher reading proficiency and omitted details impacting medical fidelity.
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.