ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Reliability of OpenAI's ChatGPT-4 in Providing Pre-colonoscopy Patient Guidance.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do bots provide correct and adequate guidance regarding acidity: A blinded comparison rated by patients and physicians.World journal of methodology · 2026Article
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Quality of artificial intelligence-generated responses on pediatric celiac disease: Comparative assessment of Open AI ChatGPT and Google Gemini.JPGN reports · 2026Article
- A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- ChatGPT and Gemini in warfarin counseling.Croatian medical journal · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is a growing area of interest. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of OpenAI's ChatGPT-4.0 in providing pre-colonoscopy patient guidance, a critical aspect of gastrointestinal care where patient misconceptions and non-compliance are common challenges.
methodsThe study employed a qualitative design to assess ChatGPT-4.0 against established clinical guidelines from various medical societies. Twenty-five patient-like queries encompassing dietary recommendations, bowel preparation, cardiovascular medications, antibiotic prophylaxis, and diabetes medications management were presented to ChatGPT-4.0. The AI's responses were independently evaluated and classified in terms of their alignment with the guidelines.
resultsChatGPT-4 demonstrated high accuracy, with all 25 sample queries' responses aligning with the established clinical guidelines. It provided precise guidance on dietary restrictions, medication management, and bowel preparation in accordance with the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF), the American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (ACG-CAG), the American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association (ACC-AHA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Australian Diabetes Society (ADS).
conclusionThe high degree of guideline adherence by ChatGPT-4.0 underscores its viability as a dependable resource for patient education. Despite its promising results, the study acknowledges limitations such as the structured nature of patient queries and the lack of real patient interactions. The findings suggest a potential role for AI in augmenting patient education and standardizing information dissemination in healthcare.
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.