Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40376022›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2025

Exploring ChatGPT effectiveness in addressing direct patient queries on colorectal cancer screening.

Marcello Maida, Yuichi Mori, Lorenzo Fuccio, Sandro Sferrazza, Alessandro Vitello, Antonio Facciorusso, Cesare Hassan

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT07261059 nanot yet recruitingnot on this map

Artificial Intelligence-assisted Integrated Care to Promote Colonoscopy Uptake in China: a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorFudan UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled400ConditionsColorectal Neoplasms, ColonoscopyArmsAI-assisted integrated care
NCT07612436 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

AI-empowered Nudge to Improve Colonoscopy Uptake (AINC): A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorFudan UniversityRan2026 to 2027Enrolled1,680ConditionsColorectal Neoplasms, ColonoscopyArmsAI-empowered nudge (AINC) strategy, Usual Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Marcello MaidaDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Kore University of Enna, Enna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4992-9289
Yuichi MoriInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2262-0334
Lorenzo FuccioDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, IRCCS University Hospital of Bologna Sant Orsola Polyclinic, Bologna, Italy.
Sandro SferrazzaGastroenterology Unit, Ospedale Civico Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Alessandro VitelloDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Kore University of Enna, Enna, Italy.
Antonio FacciorussoGastroenterology Unit, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2107-2156
Cesare HassanDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7167-1459

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and study aims: Recent studies showed that large language models (LLMs) could enhance understanding of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, potentially increasing participation rates. However, a limitation of these studies is that questions posed to LLMs are generated by experts. This study aimed to investigate ChatGPT-4o effectiveness in answering CRC screening queries directly generated by patients. Patients and methods: Ten consecutive subjects aged 50 to 69 years who were eligible for the Italian national CRC screening program but not actively involved were enrolled. Four possible scenarios for CRC screening were presented to each participant and they were asked to formulate one question per scenario to gather additional information. These questions were then posed to ChatGPT in two separate sessions. The responses were evaluated by five senior experts, who rated each answer based on three criteria: accuracy, completeness, and comprehensibility, using a 5-point Likert scale. In addition, the same 10 patients who created the questions assessed the answers, rating each response as complete, understandable, and trustworthy on a dichotomous scale (yes/no). Results: Experts rated the responses with mean scores of 4.1 ± 1.0 for accuracy, 4.2 ± 1.0 for completeness, and 4.3 ± 1.0 for comprehensibility. Patients rated responses as complete in 97.5%, understandable in 95%, and trustworthy in 100% of cases. Consistency over time was confirmed by an 86.8% similarity between session responses. Conclusions: Despite variability in questions and answers, ChatGPT confirmed good performances in answering CRC screening queries, even when used directly by patients.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancerCRC screeningEndoscopy Lower GI Tract

Identifiers

PMID40376022
PMCPMC12080512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.