ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Evaluating ChatGPT-4's correctness in patient-focused informing and awareness for atrial fibrillation.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Approaches of Text Simplification of Patient Education Materials: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Evidence Synthesis of the Ethical and Legal Challenges of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Provision of Patient Health Information.Healthcare technology lettersReview
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As artificial intelligence and large language models continue to evolve, their application in health care is expanding. OpenAI's Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (ChatGPT-4) represents the latest advancement in this technology, capable of engaging in complex dialogues and providing information. Objective: This study explores the correctness of ChatGPT-4 in informing patients about atrial fibrillation. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study involved ChatGPT-4 in responding to a structured set of 108 questions across 10 categories related to atrial fibrillation. These categories included basic information, treatment options, lifestyle adjustments, and more, reflecting common patient inquiries. The model's responses were evaluated by a panel of 3 cardiologists on the basis of accuracy, comprehensiveness, clarity, relevance to clinical practice, and patient safety. The total correctness of ChatGPT-4 was quantitatively assessed through scores assigned in each category, and statistical analysis was performed to identify significant differences in performance across categories. Results: ChatGPT-4 provided correct and relevant answers with considerable variability across categories. It excelled in "Lifestyle Adjustments" and "Daily Life and Management" with perfect and near-perfect scores but struggled with "Miscellaneous Concerns" scoring lower. Statistical analysis confirmed significant differences in total scores across categories ( Conclusion: Our results suggest that while ChatGPT-4 is reliable in categories with structured and direct queries, it shows limitations when handling complex medical queries that require in-depth explanations or clinical judgment. ChatGPT-4 demonstrates promising potential as a tool for patient-focused informing in atrial fibrillation, particularly in straightforward informing content.
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.