ArticleGenes2024
AI-Powered Neurogenetics: Supporting Patient's Evaluation with Chatbot.
Article in Genes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review on the generative AI applications in human medical genetics.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Pooled it
- The doctors of the future: the competition of ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4 omni, and Gemini 2.0 Flash in andrology.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Patients and donors trust in data authorization for AI-based medical research.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesArtificial intelligence and large language models like ChatGPT and Google's Gemini are promising tools with remarkable potential to assist healthcare professionals. This study explores ChatGPT and Gemini's potential utility in assisting clinicians during the first evaluation of patients with suspected neurogenetic disorders.
methodsBy analyzing the model's performance in identifying relevant clinical features, suggesting differential diagnoses, and providing insights into possible genetic testing, this research seeks to determine whether these AI tools could serve as a valuable adjunct in neurogenetic assessments. Ninety questions were posed to ChatGPT (Versions 4o, 4, and 3.5) and Gemini: four questions about clinical diagnosis, seven about genetic inheritance, estimable recurrence risks, and available tests, and four questions about patient management, each for six different neurogenetic rare disorders (Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia type 4 and type 7, Huntington Disease, Fragile X-associated Tremor/Ataxia Syndrome, Becker Muscular Dystrophy, and FacioScapuloHumeral Muscular Dystrophy).
resultsAccording to the results of this study, GPT chatbots demonstrated significantly better performance than Gemini. Nonetheless, all AI chatbots showed notable gaps in diagnostic accuracy and a concerning level of hallucinations.
conclusionsAs expected, these tools can empower clinicians in assessing neurogenetic disorders, yet their effective use demands meticulous collaboration and oversight from both neurologists and geneticists.
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.