ArticleScientific reports2025
The role of ChatGPT-4o in differential diagnosis and management of vertigo-related disorders.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Can a large language model inform patients about auditory brainstem implants?European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Improving the Diagnostic Workup of Vertigo: A Multidisciplinary Review.Spartan medical research journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence chatbot and clinical experts in vertigo-related diseases and evaluate the ability of the AI chatbot to address vertigo-related issues. 20 clinical questions about vertigo were input to ChatGPT-4o, and three otologists evaluated the responses using a 5-point Likert scale for accuracy, comprehensiveness, clarity, practicality, and credibility. Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formulas. The model and two otologists diagnosed 15 outpatient vertigo cases, and the diagnostic accuracy was calculated. The Kruskal-Wallis test, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and paired t-test were employed for statistical analysis. ChatGPT-4o scored highest in credibility (4.78). Repeated Measures ANOVA showed that ChatGPT's responses to the 20 questions exhibited statistically significant differences across the five scoring dimensions (F = 2.682, p = 0.038). Readability analysis showed that diagnosis-related outputs were more challenging compared to other types of content. The model's diagnostic accuracy was comparable to a clinician with one year of experience but inferior to a clinician with five years of experience, and the differences in accuracy among the three methods are statistically significant (p = 0.04). ChatGPT-4o shows promise as a supplementary tool for managing vertigo but requires improvements in readability and diagnostic capabilities.
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.