ArticleAnnals of thoracic surgery short reports2024
ChatGPT vs Expert-Guided Care Pathways for Postesophagectomy Symptom Management.
Article in Annals of thoracic surgery short reports, 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.
- Applications of artificial intelligence in postoperative surveillance and management of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Large language models for clinical decision support in gastroenterology and hepatology.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Review
- Longitudinal analysis of postoperative symptom clusters in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective of this study was to compare generative artificial intelligence-initiated care pathways, using ChatGPT, with expert-guided consensus-initiated care pathways from AskMayoExpert (AME) for symptom management of esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy. Methods: A formal protocol for development of 9 AME care pathways was followed for specific patient-identified domains after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Domain scores were measured and assessed through the Upper Digestive Disease tool. These care pathways were developed by experts validated by a consensus-driven methodology. ChatGPT was used to answer specific questions similar to the AME care pathway on April 9, 2023, and March 28, 2024. To compare outcomes, answers were recorded, and algorithms were compared with a survey tool composed of 5 questions. Results: Both modalities were able to provide a clear definition with multidirectional management options for all 9 domains: dysphagia, generalized dumping, gastrointestinal dumping, pain, regurgitation, heartburn, nausea, physical health, and mental health. When provided with a simple prompt, ChatGPT 3.5 failed to provide a comprehensive stepwise approach for providers, any testing recommendations, or any form of triage process. However, ChatGPT 4.0 provided plans, similar to AME care pathways, when a sophisticated prompt was used. Conclusions: Generative artificial intelligence-initiated care pathways can be used by physicians as a supplementary tool to guide provider management of patients with complex symptoms after esophagectomy. This technology will continue to advance but is currently insufficient to solely guide clinical management of complex patients with severe symptoms.
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.