ArticleJMIR AI2025
Investigating the Classification of Living Kidney Donation Experiences on Reddit and Understanding the Sensitivity of ChatGPT to Prompt Engineering: Content Analysis.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence to Improve Kidney Care: A Statement from the American Society of Nephrology.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2026Review
- A Brief Review of Artificial Intelligence in Living Kidney Donation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiving kidney donation (LKD), where individuals donate one kidney while alive, plays a critical role in increasing the number of kidneys available for those experiencing kidney failure. Previous studies show that many generous people are interested in becoming living donors; however, a huge gap exists between the number of patients on the waiting list and the number of living donors yearly.
objectiveTo bridge this gap, we aimed to investigate how to identify potential living donors from discussions on public social media forums so that educational interventions could later be directed to them.
methodsUsing Reddit forums as an example, this study described the classification of Reddit content shared about LKD into three classes: (1) present (presently dealing with LKD personally), (2) past (dealt with LKD personally in the past), and (3) other (LKD general comments). An evaluation was conducted comparing a fine-tuned distilled version of the Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model with inference using GPT-3.5 (ChatGPT). To systematically evaluate ChatGPT's sensitivity to distinguishing between the 3 prompt categories, we used a comprehensive prompt engineering strategy encompassing a full factorial analysis in 48 runs. A novel prompt engineering approach, dialogue until classification consensus, was introduced to simulate a deliberation between 2 domain experts until a consensus on classification was achieved.
resultsBERT and GPT-3.5 exhibited classification accuracies of approximately 75% and 78%, respectively. Recognizing the inherent ambiguity between classes, a post hoc analysis of incorrect predictions revealed sensible reasoning and acceptable errors in the predictive models. Considering these acceptable mismatched predictions, the accuracy improved to 89.3% for BERT and 90.7% for GPT-3.5.
conclusionsLarge language models, such as GPT-3.5, are highly capable of detecting and categorizing LKD-targeted content on social media forums. They are sensitive to instructions, and the introduced dialogue until classification consensus method exhibited superior performance over stand-alone reasoning, highlighting the merit in advancing prompt engineering methodologies. The models can produce appropriate contextual reasoning, even when final conclusions differ from their human counterparts.
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.