ArticleJournal of clinical rheumatology : practical reports on rheumatic & musculoskeletal diseases2025
Evaluation of the Reliability of ChatGPT to Provide Guidance on Recombinant Zoster Vaccination for Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases.
Article in Journal of clinical rheumatology : practical reports on rheumatic & musculoskeletal diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
introductionLarge language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT can potentially transform the delivery of health information. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of ChatGPT in responding to questions on recombinant zoster vaccination (RZV) in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using 20 prompts based on information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). These prompts were inputted into ChatGPT 3.5. Five rheumatologists independently scored the ChatGPT responses for accuracy (Likert 1 to 5) and completeness (Likert 1 to 3) compared with validated information sources (CDC, ACIP, and ACR).
resultsThe overall mean accuracy of ChatGPT responses on a 5-point scale was 4.04, with 80% of responses scoring ≥4. The mean completeness score of ChatGPT response on a 3-point scale was 2.3, with 95% of responses scoring ≥2. Among the 5 raters, ChatGPT unanimously scored with high accuracy and completeness to various patient and physician questions surrounding RZV. There was one instance where it scored with low accuracy and completeness. Although not significantly different, ChatGPT demonstrated the highest accuracy and completeness in answering questions related to ACIP guidelines compared with other information sources.
conclusionsChatGPT exhibits promising ability to address specific queries regarding RZV for rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease patients. However, it is essential to approach ChatGPT with caution due to risk of misinformation. This study emphasizes the importance of rigorously validating LLMs as a health information source.
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.