ArticleCureus2025
Dr. Chatbot: Investigating the Quality and Quantity of Responses Generated by Three AI Chatbots to Prompts Regarding Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
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
Introduction The objective of this study is to investigate the amount and accuracy of statements provided in answers by AI chatbots to prompts about carpal tunnel syndrome. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to assess the answers provided by OpenAI™ ChatGPT-4o model, AMBOSS™ GPT, and Google™ Gemini to common patient-based questions regarding carpal tunnel, using UpToDate as a standard reference. Objective To determine which chatbot produces the most medically accurate responses. The authors hypothesize that the paid upgrade to Chat-GPT-4o (AMBOSS GPT) will have the most accurate responses compared to the two free chatbots, ChatGPT-4o and Google Gemini 1.5 Flash model. Main outcome measures The number of statements generated by each chatbot and the percentage of those statements that can be directly verified using exact quotations from supporting information available on UpToDate as of December 2024. Results There was a significant difference in terms of the number of average statements provided per prompt by the three chatbots, as GPT-4o produced 8.9 more statements compared to AMBOSS GPT (p = 0.0081916), GPT-4o produced 19.65 more statements compared to Gemini (p = 0.0000001), and AMBOSS GPT produced 10.75 more statements than Gemini (p = <0.0000001). There was also a significant difference in terms of the percentage of information provided by each chatbot that was able to be verified in AMBOSS GPT (85.97%) vs. GPT-4o (71.76%) and Gemini (73.53%), with differences of 14.22% (p = 0.0000002) and 12.44% (p = 0.0003969), respectively. Conclusions This study demonstrated that when looking at the three AI chatbots, AMBOSS GPT, GPT-4o, and Google Gemini, GPT-4o produced the most information per prompt; however, AMBOSS GPT provided a larger percentage of information that was able to be found supported within information available in UpToDate
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.