ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Artificial intelligence enhanced Chatbot boom: A single center observational study to evaluate assistance in clinical anesthesiology.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Conversational artificial intelligence in the operating room: an exploratory cross-sectional single-center survey among anesthesiology residents.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The field of anaesthesiology and perioperative medicine has explored advancements in science and technology, ensuring precision and personalized anesthesia plans. The surge in the usage of chat-generative pretrained transformer (Chat GPT) in medicine has evoked interest among anesthesiologists to assess its performance in the operating room. However, there is concern about accuracy, patient privacy and ethics. Our objective in this study assess whether Chat GPT can provide assistance in clinical decisions and compare them with those of resident anesthesiologists. Material and Methods: In this cross-sectional study conducted at a teaching hospital, a set of 30 hypothetical clinical scenarios in the operating room were presented to resident anesthesiologists and Chat-GPT 4. The first five scenarios out of 30 were typed with three additional prompts in the same chat to determine if there was any detailing of answers. The responses were labeled and assessed by three reviewers not involved in the study. Results: The interclass coefficient (ICC) values show variation in the level of agreement between Chat GPT and anesthesiologists. For instance, the ICC of 0.41 between A1 and Chat GPT indicates a moderate level of agreement, whereas the ICC of 0.06 between A2 and Chat GPT suggests a comparatively weaker level of agreement. Conclusions: In this study, it was found that there were variations in the level of agreement between Chat GPT and resident anesthesiologists' response in terms of accuracy and comprehensiveness of responses in solving intraoperative scenarios. The use of prompts improved the agreement of Chat GPT with anesthesiologists.
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.