ArticleAJOG global reports2025
A comparative analysis of generative artificial intelligence responses from leading chatbots to questions about endometriosis.
Article in AJOG global reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The potential of large language models in the field of infertility: a systematic review.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Understanding of Preeclampsia Risk Factors in Large Language Models Compared with a Validated Competing-Risks Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Emerging Pathways to Non-Invasive Diagnosis in Endometriosis: Integrating Machine Learning, Deep Learning and Multi-Omics Biomarkers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Performance of large language models as an information resource on functional hypothalamic amenorrhea for patients and healthcare professionals.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has begun to permeate most industries, including medicine, and patients will inevitably start using these large language model (LLM) chatbots as a modality for education. As healthcare information technology evolves, it is imperative to evaluate chatbots and the accuracy of the information they provide to patients and to determine if there is variability between them. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and comprehensiveness of three chatbots in addressing questions related to endometriosis and determine the level of variability between them. Study Design: Three LLMs, including Chat GPT-4 (Open AI), Claude (Anthropic), and Bard (Google) were asked to generate answers to 10 commonly asked questions about endometriosis. The responses were qualitatively compared to current guidelines and expert opinion on endometriosis and rated on a scale by nine gynecologists. The grading scale included the following: (1) Completely incorrect, (2) mostly incorrect and some correct, (3) mostly correct and some incorrect, (4) correct but inadequate, (5) correct and comprehensive. Final scores were averaged between the nine reviewers. Kendall's Results: Average scores for the 10 answers amongst Bard, Chat GPT, and Claude were 3.69, 4.24, and 3.7, respectively. Two questions showed significant disagreement between the nine reviewers. There were no questions the models could answer comprehensively or correctly across the reviewers. The model most associated with comprehensive and correct responses was ChatGPT. Chatbots showed an improved ability to accurately answer questions about symptoms and pathophysiology over treatment and risk of recurrence. Conclusion: The analysis of LLMs revealed that, on average, they mainly provided correct but inadequate responses to commonly asked patient questions about endometriosis. While chatbot responses can serve as valuable supplements to information provided by licensed medical professionals, it is crucial to maintain a thorough ongoing evaluation process for outputs to provide the most comprehensive and accurate information to patients. Further research into this technology and its role in patient education and treatment is crucial as generative AI becomes more embedded in the medical field.
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.