ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2025
Artificial intelligence in hepatology: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4, Bing, and Bard at answering clinical questions.
Article in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do bots provide correct and adequate guidance regarding acidity: A blinded comparison rated by patients and physicians.World journal of methodology · 2026Article
- Accuracy of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in answering clinical questions from the 2025 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions/Heart Rhythm Society left atrial appendage occlusion guidelines.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Responsible use of large language models in gastroenterology and hepatology.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Comparative performance of ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, and gemini 2.5 flash on Persian internal medicine subspecialty board exams.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in hepatology is rapidly expanding. However, the ability of AI chat models such as ChatGPT to accurately answer clinical questions remains unclear. This study aims to determine the ability of large language models (LLMs) to answer questions in hepatology, as well as compare the accuracy and quality of responses provided by different LLMs. Methods: Hepatology questions from the Digestive Diseases Self-Education Platform were entered into three LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT-4, Microsoft's Bing, and Google's Bard) between September 7 and 13, 2023. Questions were posed with and without multiple-choice answers. Generated responses were assessed based on accuracy and number of correct answers. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the number of correct responses per LLM per category. Results: A total of 144 questions were used to query the AI models. ChatGPT-4's accuracy was 62.3%, Bing's accuracy was 53.5%, and Bard's accuracy was 38.2% ( Conclusions: LLMs demonstrate variable accuracy when answering clinical questions related to hepatology, though show comparable efficacy when presented with questions in an open-ended versus multiple choice (MCQ) format. Further research is required to investigate the optimal use of LLMs in clinical and educational contexts.
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.