ArticleJMIR nursing2025
Advancing Clinical Chatbot Validation Using AI-Powered Evaluation With a New 3-Bot Evaluation System: Instrument Validation Study.
Article in JMIR nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decision Support Framework for Quality Assurance and Enhancement of Therapeutic Artificial Intelligence Systems: Mixed Methods Pilot Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Self-Examination.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- A Prompt Engineering Framework for Large Language Model-Based Mental Health Chatbots: Conceptual Framework.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Article
- Beyond the Bot: A Dual-Phase Framework for Evaluating AI Chatbot Simulations in Nursing Education.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Risk of Permanent Corneal Injury in Microgravity: Spaceflight-Associated Hazards, Challenges to Vision Restoration, and Role of Biotechnology in Long-Term Planetary Missions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Background: The health care sector faces a projected shortfall of 10 million workers by 2030. Artificial intelligence (AI) automation in areas such as patient education and initial therapy screening presents a strategic response to mitigate this shortage and reallocate medical staff to higher-priority tasks. However, current methods of evaluating early-stage health care AI chatbots are highly limited due to safety concerns and the amount of time and effort that goes into evaluating them. Objective: This study introduces a novel 3-bot method for efficiently testing and validating early-stage AI health care provider chatbots. To extensively test AI provider chatbots without involving real patients or researchers, various AI patient bots and an evaluator bot were developed. Methods: Provider bots interacted with AI patient bots embodying frustrated, anxious, or depressed personas. An evaluator bot reviewed interaction transcripts based on specific criteria. Human experts then reviewed each interaction transcript, and the evaluator bot's results were compared to human evaluation results to ensure accuracy. Results: The patient-education bot's evaluations by the AI evaluator and the human evaluator were nearly identical, with minimal variance, limiting the opportunity for further analysis. The screening bot's evaluations also yielded similar results between the AI evaluator and human evaluator. Statistical analysis confirmed the reliability and accuracy of the AI evaluations. Conclusions: The innovative evaluation method ensures a safe, adaptable, and effective means to test and refine early versions of health care provider chatbots without risking patient safety or investing excessive researcher time and effort. Our patient-education evaluator bots could have benefitted from larger evaluation criteria, as we had extremely similar results from the AI and human evaluators, which could have arisen because of the small number of evaluation criteria. We were limited in the amount of prompting we could input into each bot due to the practical consideration that response time increases with larger and larger prompts. In the future, using techniques such as retrieval augmented generation will allow the system to receive more information and become more specific and accurate in evaluating the chatbots. This evaluation method will allow for rapid testing and validation of health care chatbots to automate basic medical tasks, freeing providers to address more complex tasks.
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.