ArticleCureus2025
Is ChatGPT a Reliable Tool for Explaining Medical Terms?
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Assessing AI-Based Large Language Models (ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and DeepSeek) for Common Parent Questions about Autism: Acceptability, Readability, and Accuracy.The Psychiatric quarterly · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The increasing reliance on the internet for health-related information has driven interest in artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare. ChatGPT has demonstrated strong performance in medical exams, raising questions about its potential use in patient education. However, no prior study has evaluated the reliability of ChatGPT in explaining medical terms. This study investigates whether ChatGPT-4 is a reliable tool for translating frequently used medical terms into language that patients can understand. Methodology A total of 105 frequently used medical terms were selected from the University of San Diego's medical terminology list. Four groups - general practitioners, resident physicians, specialist physicians, and ChatGPT-4 - were tasked with defining these terms. Responses were classified as correct or incorrect. Statistical analyses, including chi-square and post-hoc tests, were conducted to compare accuracy rates across groups. Results ChatGPT-4 achieved a 100% accuracy rate, outperforming specialist physicians (98.1%), resident physicians (93.3%), and general practitioners (84.8%). The differences in accuracy rates between groups were statistically significant (χ²=25.99, p<0.00001). Post-hoc analyses confirmed significant pairwise differences, such as ChatGPT-4 vs. specialist physicians (p<0.001) and specialist physicians vs. resident physicians (p=0.02). Conclusions ChatGPT-4 demonstrated superior reliability in translating medical terms into understandable language, surpassing even highly experienced physicians. These findings suggest that ChatGPT could be a valuable auxiliary tool for improving patient comprehension of medical terminology. Nonetheless, the importance of consulting healthcare professionals for clinical decision-making remains crucial.
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.