ArticleDigital health
Evaluation of generative AI assistance in clinical nephrology: Assessing GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.0 Ultra, and PaLM 2 in patient interaction and renal biopsy interpretation.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A pilot study on the impact of large language model assistance on the evaluation of complex medical living kidney donor candidates.Clinical transplantation and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Compares the responses of four AI models to common nephrology-related questions encountered in clinical settings. Objective: To evaluate generative AI models in enhancing nephrology patient communication and education. Design: Generative AI in Nephrology. Setting: In a study conducted from December 8-12, 2023, and October 21-23, 2024, IT engineers evaluated GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.0 Ultra, and PaLM 2 for nephrology patient communication and education, querying each with 21 nephrology questions and three renal biopsy reports, repeated for consistency. Interventions for clinical trials or Exposures for observational studies: None. Main Outcomes and Measures: Fifteen nephrologists and one nephrology researcher assessed responses for Appropriateness, Helpfulness, Consistency, and human-like empathy, with rating scale (1-4). Using Shapiro-Wilk and Mann-Whitney Results: GPT-4o consistently achieved high scores in Appropriateness (3.39 ± 0.7) and Helpfulness (3.24 ± 0.73), while PaLM 2 demonstrated the highest consistency score (3.0 ± 0.86). In empathy, GPT-4 achieved the highest overall score (80.73%), excelling in patient-centric scenarios, followed by GPT-4o (76.56%). PaLM 2 showed competitive empathy in specific cases, despite scoring lower in consistency and Appropriateness.For Kidney-Related Queries, GPT-4o excelled in relevance metrics, achieving the highest BertScore (0.57) and ROUGE for one-word metrics (0.54). Gemini 1.0 Ultra led in generating coherent responses for Renal Biopsy Reports with the highest TF-IDF (0.56) and ROUGE for longest similar sentences (0.47). All 101 references provided by GPT-4 were 100% accurate. Conclusions and Relevance: GPT-4o emerged as the most accurate and consistent model across most evaluation categories, while GPT-4 demonstrated superior empathy and balanced performance. PaLM 2 and Gemini 1.0 Ultra showed strengths in specific areas, highlighting the potential for tailored applications of generative AI in nephrology clinical practice.
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.