ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Performance of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots on Ultrasound Examinations: Cross-Sectional Comparative Analysis.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. 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.
- Stepwise Diagnostic Evaluation of Chinese Large Language Models: Comparative Study of Common and Rare Diseases.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The impact of regional block presence on large language model-based postoperative analgesia recommendations in abdominal surgery: a comparative study using real-world patient data.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- "Your Digital Doctor Will Now See You": A Narrative Review of VR and AI Technology in Chronic Illness Management.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Background: Artificial intelligence chatbots are being increasingly used for medical inquiries, particularly in the field of ultrasound medicine. However, their performance varies and is influenced by factors such as language, question type, and topic. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT and ERNIE Bot in answering ultrasound-related medical examination questions, providing insights for users and developers. Methods: We curated 554 questions from ultrasound medicine examinations, covering various question types and topics. The questions were posed in both English and Chinese. Objective questions were scored based on accuracy rates, whereas subjective questions were rated by 5 experienced doctors using a Likert scale. The data were analyzed in Excel. Results: Of the 554 questions included in this study, single-choice questions comprised the largest share (354/554, 64%), followed by short answers (69/554, 12%) and noun explanations (63/554, 11%). The accuracy rates for objective questions ranged from 8.33% to 80%, with true or false questions scoring highest. Subjective questions received acceptability rates ranging from 47.62% to 75.36%. ERNIE Bot was superior to ChatGPT in many aspects (P<.05). Both models showed a performance decline in English, but ERNIE Bot's decline was less significant. The models performed better in terms of basic knowledge, ultrasound methods, and diseases than in terms of ultrasound signs and diagnosis. Conclusions: Chatbots can provide valuable ultrasound-related answers, but performance differs by model and is influenced by language, question type, and topic. In general, ERNIE Bot outperforms ChatGPT. Users and developers should understand model performance characteristics and select appropriate models for different questions and languages to optimize chatbot use.
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.