ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Comparative evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of ChatGPT versions in providing information on
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 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
- Information quality, readability, and empathy of AI-generated public mental health information: a comparative evaluation of eight large language models.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Large language models for clinical decision support in gastroenterology and hepatology.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Comparative performance of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in interpreting the 2025 ESICM guidelines on sepsis fluid therapy.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of responses provided by three versions of ChatGPT (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and ChatGPT-4o) to questions related to Methods: A panel of experts compiled and refined a set of 27 clinical questions related to Hp. These questions were presented to each ChatGPT version, generating three distinct sets of responses. The responses were evaluated and scored by three gastroenterology specialists utilizing a 5-point Likert scale, with an emphasis on accuracy and comprehensiveness. To assess response stability and reliability, each question was submitted three times over three consecutive days. Results: Statistically significant differences in the Likert scale scores were observed among the three ChatGPT versions ( Conclusion: All three versions of ChatGPT were effective in addressing Hp-related questions, with ChatGPT-4o delivering the most accurate information. These findings suggest that artificial intelligence-driven chat models hold significant potential in healthcare, facilitating improved patient awareness, self-management, and treatment compliance, as well as supporting physicians in making informed medical decisions by providing accurate information and personalized recommendations.
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.