ArticleCureus2024
Trustworthiness, Value, Danger, and Readability of ChatGPT-Generated Responses to Health Questions Related to Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A Heart-to-Heart With ChatGPT: AI Applications in Hypertension.American journal of hypertension · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo enhance outcomes for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), comprehensive and individualized therapy is needed. A large language model called Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has the ability to provide expert yet patient-friendly care. We wanted to determine how well ChatGPT could accurately and consistently respond to inquiries on knowledge and management for PAH. MATERIALS AND
methodsWhen 20 PAH patients were diagnosed, they were asked what concerns they had about PAH and what they had researched online. In the evaluation, it was determined that patients frequently searched the Internet for answers to eight queries. These eight queries were posed to ChatGPT, and their responses were recorded. Ten experts in the field of PAH assessed the trustworthiness, value, and hazard of the answers generated by the ChatGPT.
resultsAccording to evaluations conducted by experts, the ChatGPT-generated responses were deemed trustworthy with an average score of 8.4 (7.7-9.2) and valuable with an average score of 7.9 (7.4-8.2). Based on the statistical analysis, it can be inferred that most professionals believed that the utilization of prompts provided by ChatGPT did not present a substantial risk, with a mean of 2.1 (1.7-2.5). The answers were assessed for readability using two different indicators, namely the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). The average FKGL value was determined to be 13.52 ± 2.40, indicating a "difficult" level of readability.
conclusionChatGPT provides reliable PAH-related information, but it is important to seek professional medical advice before making any decisions regarding PAH. ChatGPT can only provide general information and support, but a qualified healthcare provider can offer tailored recommendations.
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.