ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Exploring ChatGPT effectiveness in addressing direct patient queries on colorectal cancer screening.
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.
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.
Artificial Intelligence-assisted Integrated Care to Promote Colonoscopy Uptake in China: a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
AI-empowered Nudge to Improve Colonoscopy Uptake (AINC): A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large Language Models in Colorectal Cancer Care and Clinical Decision Support: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- A Guideline-Concordant Chatbot Framework for Structured Colorectal Cancer Screening: Multistage Feasibility Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Risk of Guideline Overselling and Certainty Inflation in GPT-5 Responses: A Statement-Based Analysis of Four ESGE Colorectal Guidelines.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Dr. LLM Will See You Now: The Ability of ChatGPT to Provide Geographically Tailored Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance Recommendations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- When AI speaks like a specialist: ChatGPT-4 in the management of inflammatory bowel disease.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.