ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of physician and large language model chatbot responses to online ear, nose, and throat inquiries.
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 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
- Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions of Large Language Models in Health Care Communication: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- AI chatbots for health information seeking among Chinese patients with precancerous ENT lesions: a descriptive qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Foundation models in healthcare: a comprehensive review from technical advances to clinical translation.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Developing a Service Quality Index System for AI Health Care Chatbots: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- TCMEval-PA: a question-answering benchmark dataset for the prescription audit of Traditional Chinese Medicine.Scientific data · 2025Article
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
Large language models (LLMs) can potentially enhance the accessibility and quality of medical information. This study evaluates the reliability and quality of responses generated by ChatGPT-4, an LLM-driven chatbot, compared to those written by physicians, focusing on otorhinolaryngological advice in real-world, text-based workflows. Responses from a public social media forum were anonymized, and ChatGPT-4 generated corresponding replies. A panel of seven board-certified otorhinolaryngologists assessed both sets of responses using six criteria: overall quality, empathy, alignment with medical consensus, information accuracy, inquiry comprehension, and harm potential. Ordinal logistic regression analysis identified factors influencing response quality. ChatGPT-4 responses were preferred in 70.7% of cases and were significantly longer (median: 162 words) than physician responses (median: 67 words; P < .0001). The chatbot's responses received higher ratings across all criteria, with key predictors of this higher quality being greater empathy, stronger alignment with medical consensus, lower potential for harm, and fewer inaccuracies. ChatGPT-4 consistently outperformed physicians in generating responses that adhered to medical consensus, demonstrated accuracy, and conveyed empathy. These findings suggest that integrating AI tools into text-based healthcare consultations could help physicians better address complex, nuanced inquiries and provide high-quality, comprehensive medical advice.
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.