ArticleDigital health
Comparing the performance of ChatGPT and ERNIE Bot in answering questions regarding liver cancer interventional radiology in Chinese and English contexts: A comparative study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI and Interventional Radiology: A Narrative Review of Reviews on Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- DeepSeek vs ChatGPT: a comparison study of their performance in answering prostate cancer radiotherapy questions in multiple languages.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2025Article
- How public discourse on medical AI shapes governance expectations: a Weibo-based mixed-methods study from China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Tests of large language models' medical competence and application for clinical decision support of musculoskeletal rehabilitation.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aims to critically assess the appropriateness and limitations of two prominent large language models (LLMs), enhanced representation through knowledge integration (ERNIE Bot) and chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), in answering questions about liver cancer interventional radiology. Through a comparative analysis, the performance of these models will be evaluated based on their responses to questions about transarterial chemoembolization and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in both English and Chinese contexts. Methods: A total of 38 questions were developed to cover a range of topics related to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), including foundational knowledge, patient education, and treatment and care. The responses generated by ERNIE Bot and ChatGPT were rigorously evaluated by 10 professionals in liver cancer interventional radiology. The final score was determined by one seasoned clinical expert. Each response was rated on a five-point Likert scale, facilitating a quantitative analysis of the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the information provided by each language model. Results: ERNIE Bot is superior to ChatGPT in the Chinese context (ERNIE Bot: 5, 89.47%; 4, 10.53%; 3, 0%; 2, 0%; 1, 0% vs ChatGPT: 5, 57.89%; 4, 5.27%; 3, 34.21%; 2, 2.63%; 1, 0%; Conclusions: This study preliminarily demonstrated that ERNIE Bot and ChatGPT effectively address questions related to liver cancer interventional radiology. However, their performance varied by language: ChatGPT excelled in English contexts, while ERNIE Bot performed better in Chinese. We found that choosing the appropriate LLMs is beneficial for patients in obtaining more accurate treatment information. Both models require manual review to ensure accuracy and reliability in practical 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.