ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2025
Discussion of the ability to use chatGPT to answer questions related to esophageal cancer of patient concern.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Chat Generation Pre-Trained Converter (ChatGPT) is a language processing model based on artificial intelligence (AI). It covers a wide range of topics, including medicine, and can provide patients with knowledge about esophageal cancer. Objective: Based on its risk, this study aimed to assess ChatGPT's accuracy in answering patients' questions about esophageal cancer. Methods: By referring to professional association websites, social software and the author's clinical experience, 55 questions concerned by Chinese patients and their families were generated and scored by two deputy chief physicians of esophageal cancer. The answers were: (1) comprehensive/correct, (2) incomplete/partially correct, (3) partially accurate, partially inaccurate, and (4) completely inaccurate/irrelevant. Score differences are resolved by a third reviewer. Results: Out of 55 questions, 24 (43.6%) of the answers provided by ChatGPT were complete and correct, 13 (23.6%) were correct but incomplete, 18 (32.7%) were partially wrong, and no answers were completely wrong. Comprehensive and correct answers were highest in the field of prevention (50 percent), while partially incorrect answers were highest in the field of treatment (77.8 percent). Conclusion: ChatGPT can accurately answer the questions about the prevention and diagnosis of esophageal cancer, but it cannot accurately answer the questions about the treatment and prognosis of esophageal cancer. Further investigation and refinement of this widely used large-scale language model are needed before it can be recommended to patients with esophageal cancer, and ongoing research is still needed to verify the safety and accuracy of these tools and their medical applications.
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.