Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40513086›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Analysis of the Political Viewpoint of Policy Statements From Professional Medical Organizations Using ChatGPT With GPT-4: Cross-Sectional Study.

Ben Knudsen, Amr Madkour, Preetam Cholli, Alyson Haslam, Vinay Prasad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ben KnudsenThe George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9709-3076
Amr MadkourDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4597-8710
Preetam CholliDepartment of Internal Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9661-9550
Alyson HaslamDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7876-3978
Vinay PrasadDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6110-8221

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProfessional medical organizations publish policy statements that are used to impact legislation or address societal issues. Many organizations are nonpartisan, yet it is uncertain whether their policy statements balance liberal and conservative values.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the political viewpoint of policy statements from 6 influential medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Surgeons, American Psychiatric Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, and American Academy of Family Physicians.

methodsBetween December 2023 and February 2024, policy statements from the 6 organizations were identified and evaluated using ChatGPT with GPT-4 to reduce bias. Each statement was pasted into a new ChatGPT session following the phrase "Does this text align with a liberal or conservative viewpoint?" Two authors reviewed each response and categorized the statement as liberal, probably liberal, neutral, probably conservative, or conservative.

resultsOne-third of policy statements (529/1592, 33.2%) were found to be aligned with a political ideology. Among these 529 statements, 516 (97.5%) were liberal or probably liberal and 13 (2.5%) were conservative or probably conservative. For each organization, among policy statements with a political leaning, the percentage of liberal or probably liberal statements was as follows: 100% (69/69) for the American Academy of Pediatrics, 100% (24/24) for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 100% (12/12) for the American College of Surgeons, 99% (72/73) for the American Psychiatric Association, 97% (174/180) for the American Academy of Family Physicians, and 96% (165/171) for the American College of Physicians.

conclusionsOne in 3 policy statements from these 6 professional organizations align with a partisan political viewpoint. Among these, positions are 40 times more likely to be liberal or probably liberal than conservative or probably conservative. Whether or not organizations are politically neutral and seek viewpoint diversity warrants further exploration.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPoliticsSocieties, MedicalCross-Sectional StudiesGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansUnited StatesAIchatbotChatGPThealth policymedical organizationspolicy statementspolitical alignmentpolitical ideologypolitical viewpointpublic health

Identifiers

PMID40513086
PMCPMC12205260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.