ArticleAcute medicine & surgery
Medical validity and layperson interpretation of emergency visit recommendations by the GPT model: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Acute medicine & surgery. 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.
- Article
- Medical validity and layperson interpretation of emergency visit recommendations by the GPT model: A cross-sectional study.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: In Japan, emergency ambulance dispatches involve minor cases requiring outpatient services, emphasizing the need for improved public guidance regarding emergency care. This study evaluated both the medical plausibility of the GPT model in aiding laypersons to determine the need for emergency medical care and the laypersons' interpretations of its outputs. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from December 10, 2023, to March 7, 2024. We input clinical scenarios into the GPT model and evaluated the need for emergency visits based on the outputs. A total of 314 scenarios were labeled with red tags (emergency, immediate emergency department [ED] visit) and 152 with green tags (less urgent). Seven medical specialists assessed the outputs' validity, and 157 laypersons interpreted them via a web-based questionnaire. Results: Experts reported that the GPT model accurately identified important information in 95.9% (301/314) of red-tagged scenarios and recommended immediate ED visits in 96.5% (303/314). However, only 43.0% (135/314) of laypersons interpreted those outputs as indicating urgent hospital visits. The model identified important information in 99.3% (151/152) of green-tagged scenarios and advised against immediate visits in 88.8% (135/152). However, only 32.2% (49/152) of laypersons considered them routine follow-ups. Conclusions: Expert evaluations revealed that the GPT model could be highly accurate in advising on emergency visits. However, laypersons frequently misinterpreted its recommendations, highlighting a substantial gap in understanding AI-generated medical advice.
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.