SynthesisFrontiers in digital health2025
Comparative analysis of ChatGPT and Gemini (Bard) in medical inquiry: a scoping review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Credibility of ChatGPT on Temporomandibular Disorders.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Article
- How Often Do Large Language Models Agree with Each Other-And with the Truth? A Consensus- and Complexity-Stratified Analysis of Data Extraction for Neuroimaging AI.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Patient and physician perspectives on large language model generated responses about brain aneurysm.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026Article
- The doctors of the future: the competition of ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4 omni, and Gemini 2.0 Flash in andrology.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Article
- Reliability and readability of AI platforms for pediatric health advice: a comparative analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Arabic-Language AI Chatbot Responses to Migraine-Related Questions: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Are chatbots reliable sources of information regarding fluoride in pediatric dentistry?BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Quality of artificial intelligence-generated responses on pediatric celiac disease: Comparative assessment of Open AI ChatGPT and Google Gemini.JPGN reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating Generative Artificial Intelligence Models' Responses to Questions About Scaphoid Fracture and Scaphoid Nonunion.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Article
- AI-Powered Clinical Decision Support in Dentistry: Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models for Oral Medicine and Periodontal Diagnosis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Performance of ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Pro, and DeepSeek-V3 in Patient-Facing Information on Chest Wall Deformities: A Comparative Evaluation of Accuracy, RELIABILITY, and Reproducibility.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of AI models on case-based oral medicine questions across Bloom's taxonomy levels and subtopics.Odontology · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models on neuroanatomy-based medical riddles: a comparative study.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Popular Gen-AI Chatbots in Generating Patient Education Material on Pulmonary Artery Catheter Insertion.Annals of cardiac anaesthesia · 2026Article
- A comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and Gemini for stroke caregiver support: accuracy, safety, and response characteristics.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, and gemini 2.5 flash on Persian internal medicine subspecialty board exams.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence and machine learning are popular interconnected technologies. AI chatbots like ChatGPT and Gemini show considerable promise in medical inquiries. This scoping review aims to assess the accuracy and response length (in characters) of ChatGPT and Gemini in medical applications. Methods: The eligible databases were searched to find studies published in English from January 1 to October 20, 2023. The inclusion criteria consisted of studies that focused on using AI in medicine and assessed outcomes based on the accuracy and character count (length) of ChatGPT and Gemini. Data collected from the studies included the first author's name, the country where the study was conducted, the type of study design, publication year, sample size, medical speciality, and the accuracy and response length. Results: The initial search identified 64 papers, with 11 meeting the inclusion criteria, involving 1,177 samples. ChatGPT showed higher accuracy in radiology (87.43% vs. Gemini's 71%) and shorter responses (907 vs. 1,428 characters). Similar trends were noted in other specialties. However, Gemini outperformed ChatGPT in emergency scenarios (87% vs. 77%) and in renal diets with low potassium and high phosphorus (79% vs. 60% and 100% vs. 77%). Statistical analysis confirms that ChatGPT has greater accuracy and shorter responses than Gemini in medical studies, with a Conclusion: This Scoping review suggests that ChatGPT may demonstrate higher accuracy and provide shorter responses than Gemini in medical studies.
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.