Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40224573›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2025

Artificial intelligence in hepatology: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4, Bing, and Bard at answering clinical questions.

Sama Anvari, Yung Lee, David Shiqiang Jin, Sarah Malone, Matthew Collins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sama AnvariDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7284-8735
Yung LeeDivision of General Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6257-4400
David Shiqiang JinFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Sarah MaloneFaculty of Sciences, Queens University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Matthew CollinsDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligenceclinicalhepatologylarge language modelsmedical education

Identifiers

PMID40224573
PMCPMC11991870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.