ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT in delivering patient instructions for medications: an exploratory case study.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- ChatGPT and Gemini in warfarin counseling.Croatian medical journal · 2026Article
- Emerging shadow health systems: regulating health-focused generative AI chatbots from a European perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Pharm D student's Knowledge, perception, and practice of CHAT-GPT in clinical training: a web-based cross-sectional survey in India.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Integrating large language models into clinical pharmacy education: applications in perioperative medication management for gastric cancer.Frontiers in medicine · 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: The use of ChatGPT in healthcare is still in its early stages; however, it has the potential to become a cornerstone in modern healthcare systems. This study aims to assess the accuracy of output of ChatGPT compared with those of CareNotes Methods: An exploratory case study was conducted using a published questionnaire to evaluate ChatGPT-generated reports against patient instructions from CareNotes Results: The evaluators indicated that the ChatGPT reports of tirzepatide, citalopram, and apixaban were correct but lacked completeness. Additionally, ChatGPT reports have the potential to cause harm and may negatively affect medication adherence. Conclusion: Although ChatGPT demonstrated promising results, particularly in terms of correctness, it cannot yet be considered a reliable standalone source of patient drug information.
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.