ArticleCureus2024
ChatGPT-Assisted Machine Learning for Chronic Disease Classification and Prediction: A Developmental and Validation Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Fine-tuning LLM hyperparameters to align semantic and physiological contexts of aging-related pathways.Molecular diversity · 2026Article
- Using Large Language Models for Chronic Disease Management Tasks: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Evaluating the use of body mass index change as a proxy for anorexia nervosa recovery: a machine learning perspective.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- A bibliometric analysis of large language model-based AI chatbots in surgery.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
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 Chronic diseases such as chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic liver disease (CLD), tuberculosis (TB), dementia, and heart disease are global health concerns of significant importance, representing major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early diagnosis and interventions are critical to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. Methods This prospective observational study analyzed clinical data from 270 patients (calculated using G*Power 3.1.9.7 analysis (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany), α = 0.05, power = 0.80), with 260 (96.3%) completing the protocol. The cohort comprised 149 (55.2%) males and 121 (44.8%) females, distributed across CKD (n=55, 21.2%), CLD (n=52, 20.0%), TB (n=51, 19.6%), dementia (n=50, 19.2%), and heart disease (n=52, 20.0%). Three ML models were employed with ChatGPT version 3.5 assistance (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) in feature selection and hyperparameter optimization: logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machines. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, recall, F1-score, and AUC-ROC metrics. Ten-fold cross-validation was applied to ensure robustness. Results The random forest model demonstrated superior performance, achieving the highest accuracy in predicting CKD (47/55, 85.3%, p < 0.001, sensitivity 45/55, 82.5%, specificity 48/55, 87.2%) and heart disease (46/52, 88.2%, p < 0.001, sensitivity 45/52, 85.7%, specificity 47/52, 90.1%). Logistic regression effectively predicted TB (41/51, 80.1%, p < 0.01) and dementia (41/50, 82.4%, p < 0.01). Key predictive parameters included hemoglobin (median 10.2 g/dL, IQR 8.4-12.6) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (median 42.0 mm/hr, IQR 20.0-65.0). Model validation showed high consistency, with positive acid-fast bacilli in 40/51 (78.4%) TB cases and characteristic radiological findings in 43/51 (84.3%) cases. Conclusion ML algorithms, particularly random forest, show promising potential in chronic disease classification and prediction. The integration of ChatGPT enhanced model development through optimized feature selection and hyperparameter tuning. Future research should focus on external validation through multi-center studies and prospective clinical trials.
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.