ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of correctness and reliability of GPT, Bard, and Bing chatbots' responses in basic life support scenarios.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autism-Related Information on Websites and General-Purpose Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: Comparative, Bilingual Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- AI-Driven Objective Structured Clinical Examination Generation in Digital Health Education: Comparative Analysis of Three GPT-4o Configurations.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence to improve patient care in emergency medicine: a workflow-based analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Large language models in emergency medicine education: opportunities, challenges, and implementation pathways.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Pediatric Emergencies: A Reliable Lifeline or a Risk?Cureus · 2025Article
- Tests of large language models' medical competence and application for clinical decision support of musculoskeletal rehabilitation.Frontiers in digital health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Timely recognition and initiation of basic life support (BLS) before emergency medical services arrive significantly improve survival rates and neurological outcomes. In an era where health information-seeking behaviors have shifted toward online sources, chatbots powered by generative artificial intelligence (AI) are emerging as potential tools for providing immediate health-related guidance. This study investigates the reliability of AI chatbots, specifically GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Bard, and Bing, in responding to BLS scenarios. A cross-sectional study was conducted using six scenarios adapted from the BLS. Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) by United Medical Education. These scenarios covering adult, pediatric, and infant emergencies, were presented to each chatbot on two occasions, one week apart. Responses were evaluated by a board-certified emergency medicine professor from Tehran University of Medical Sciences, using a checklist based on BLS-OSCE standards. Correctness was assessed, and reliability was measured using Cohen's kappa coefficient. GPT-4 demonstrated the highest correctness in adult scenarios (85% correct responses), while Bard showed 60% correctness. GPT-3.5 and Bing performed poorly across all scenarios. Bard achieved a correctness rate of 52.17% in pediatric scenarios, but all chatbots scored below 44% in infant scenarios. Cohen's kappa indicated substantial reliability for GPT-4 (k = 0.649) and GPT-3.5 (k = 0.645), moderate reliability for Bing (k = 0.503), and fair reliability for Bard (k = 0.357). While GPT-4 showed the highest correctness and reliability in adult BLS situations, all tested chatbots struggled significantly in pediatric and infant cases. Furthermore, none of the chatbots consistently adhered to BLS guidelines, raising concerns about their potential use in real-life emergencies. Based on these findings, AI chatbots in their current form can only be relied upon to guide bystanders through life-saving procedures with human supervision.
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.