ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Accuracy and Reliability of ChatGPT in Answering Patient Questions About Lung Cancer and Its Surgery: An Expert Panel Evaluation by Thoracic Surgeons.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions of Large Language Models in Health Care Communication: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The Quality of AI-Generated CABG Counseling: A Blinded Comparison of Two Language Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 for Patient Education in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Radiotherapy: a Comparative Analysis.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- ChatGPT and Gemini in warfarin counseling.Croatian medical journal · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and gemini responses to patient-oriented questions on breast cancer.PloS one · 2026Article
- The importance of response generation protocols in chatbot-based patient education studies.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Expert evaluation of GPT-4o and Gemini responses to patient questions on carotid endarterectomy.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Comparative assessment of ChatGPT and Gemini answers to common chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questions: An expert panel evaluation by pulmonologists.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, clarity, and scientific adequacy of ChatGPT's responses to frequently asked patient questions concerning lung cancer and its surgical treatment, through an expert panel of thoracic surgeons. A total of 36 frequently asked questions-20 related to lung cancer and 16 related to lung cancer surgery-were collected from various online sources and clinical experience. These questions were submitted to ChatGPT-4.0 in a single session, and the initial responses were assessed by four experienced thoracic surgeons. Each response was scored independently using a 5-point Likert scale for scientific adequacy, clarity, and accuracy. The mean scores, standard deviations, and word counts were calculated. Inter-group comparisons were conducted using independent-samples t-tests. ChatGPT's responses were rated generally high across all domains. For lung cancer questions, the mean scores were 4.50 ± 0.18 (scientific adequacy), 4.57 ± 0.21 (clarity), and 4.66 ± 0.21 (accuracy), with an average word count of 152.4 ± 36.86. For surgical questions, scores were slightly higher: 4.57 ± 0.31, 4.64 ± 0.26, and 4.73 ± 0.21, respectively, with an average word count of 163.68 ± 35.64. Although the differences were not statistically significant, responses to surgical questions were associated with slightly higher agreement scores. Full scores were achieved in three surgical questions. ChatGPT demonstrated a high degree of reliability and clarity in answering commonly asked patient questions about lung cancer and surgery. While the model can serve as a supportive educational tool, it should not replace personalized physician-patient communication, especially in clinical decision-making processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40615772What 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.