ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Exploring ChatGPT in clinical inquiry: a scoping review of characteristics, applications, challenges, and evaluation.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can large language models accurately compute descriptive statistics from structured datasets? A comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and Claude.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Language Models in Oncology: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Published Studies.Cureus · 2026Review
- Generative Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Automation Bias, Deskilling, and Cognitive Implications - A Systematic Review.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2026Review
- ChatGPT's performance in sample size estimation: a preliminary study on the capabilities of artificial intelligence.Family practice · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recent advancements in generative AI, exemplified by ChatGPT, hold promise for healthcare applications such as decision-making support, education, and patient engagement. However, rigorous evaluation is crucial to ensure reliability and safety in clinical contexts. This scoping review explores ChatGPT's role in clinical inquiry, focusing on its characteristics, applications, challenges, and evaluation. Methods: This review, conducted in 2023, followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/MS9/A636). Searches were performed across PubMed, Scopus, IEEE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar using relevant keywords. The review explored ChatGPT's effectiveness in various medical domains, evaluation methods, target users, and comparisons with other AI models. Data synthesis and analysis incorporated both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Results: Analysis of 41 academic studies highlights ChatGPT's potential in medical education, patient care, and decision support, though performance varies by medical specialty and linguistic context. GPT-3.5, frequently referenced in 26 studies, demonstrated adaptability across diverse scenarios. Challenges include limited access to official answer keys and inconsistent performance, underscoring the need for ongoing refinement. Evaluation methods, including expert comparisons and statistical analyses, provided significant insights into ChatGPT's efficacy. The identification of target users, such as medical educators and nonexpert clinicians, illustrates its broad applicability. Conclusion: ChatGPT shows significant potential in enhancing clinical practice and medical education. Nevertheless, continuous refinement is essential for its successful integration into healthcare, aiming to improve patient care outcomes, and address the evolving needs of the medical community.
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.