ArticleCureus2024
Assessing the Performance of ChatGPT in Answering Patients' Questions Regarding Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimArtificial intelligence (AI) models, such as ChatGPT, are widely being used in academia as well as by the common public. In the field of medicine, the information obtained by the professionals as well as by the patients from the AI tools has significant advantages while at the same time posing valid concerns regarding the validity and adequacy of information regarding healthcare delivery and utilization. Therefore, it is important to vet these AI tools through the prism of practicing physicians.
methodsTo demonstrate the immense utility as well as potential concerns of using ChatGPT to gather medical information, a set of questions were posed to the chatbot regarding a hypothetical patient with a congenital bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), and the answers were recorded and reviewed based on three criteria: (i) readability/technicality; (ii) adequacy/completeness; and (iii) accuracy/authenticity.
resultsWhile the ChatGPT provided detailed information about clinical pictures, treatment, and outcomes regarding BAV, the information was generic and brief, and the utility was limited due to a lack of specific information based on an individual patient's clinical status. The authenticity of the information could not be verified due to a lack of citations. Further, human aspects that would normally emerge in nuanced doctor-patient communication were missing in the ChatGPT output.
conclusionAlthough the performance of AI in medical care is expected to grow, imperfections and ethical concerns may remain a huge challenge in utilizing information from the chatbots alone without adequate communications with health providers, despite having numerous advantages of this technology to society in many walks of human life.
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.