ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2024
AI in Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Expert Evaluation of Patient-Facing Information.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 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.
- Towards a Paradigm Shift in Delivering Hidradenitis Suppurativa Care: a Narrative Review.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigates the accuracy of Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots, ChatGPT and Bard, in providing information on Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS), aiming to explore their potential in assisting HS patients by offering insights into symptoms, thus possibly reducing the diagnostic and treatment time gap. Patients and Methods: Using questions formulated with the help of HS patient associations, both ChatGPT and Bard were assessed. Responses to these questions were evaluated by 18 hS experts. Results: ChatGPT's responses were considered accurate in 86% of cases, significantly outperforming Bard, which only achieved 14% accuracy. Despite the general efficacy of ChatGPT in providing relevant information across a range of HS-related queries, both AI systems showed limitations in offering adequate advice on treatments. The study identifies a significant difference in the performance of the two AIs, emphasizing the need for improvement in AI-driven medical advice, particularly regarding treatment options. Conclusion: The study highlights the potential of AI chatbots, particularly ChatGPT, in supporting HS patients by improving symptom understanding and potentially reducing the time to diagnosis and treatment. AI chatbots, while promising, cannot yet substitute for professional medical diagnosis and treatment, indicating the importance of enhancing AI capabilities for more accurate and reliable medical information dissemination.
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.