ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025
ChatGPT as an information source for cochlear implants: A study on accuracy and reproducibility.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence, real questions: ChatGPT and cochlear implants.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluates ChatGPT's accuracy and reproducibility in answering patient inquiries about cochlear implantation.
methodForty-one questions were compiled from cochlear implant company websites, clinics, patient support groups, and social media. Questions were categorized into five topics: basic knowledge, information on surgery process, expected results and limitations, answering questions from candidates and families, and technical features of cochlear implant. ChatGPT was queried, and two audiologists and one ENT specialist independently assessed responses for accuracy and reproducibility. Responses were rated as: (1) comprehensive/correct, (2) incomplete/partially correct, (3) a mix of accurate and inaccurate/misleading and (4) completely inaccurate/irrelevant.. Reproducibility was evaluated by repeating questions and analyzing grading consistency.
resultsChatGPT provided "comprehensive/correct" answers for 34/41 (82.9%) questions, while 12.2% were "incomplete/partially correct" and 4.9% contained a mix of accurate and inaccurate/misleading. No responses were completely inaccurate. By category, it correctly answered 100% of "basic knowledge" and "technical features of cochlear implant" questions, 60% on "information on surgery process," 80% on "expected results and limitations," and 88.9% on "answering questions from candidate and families." Reproducibility was 82.9%.
conclusionChatGPT demonstrates strong accuracy and consistency in responding to cochlear implantation questions. While some limitations exist, it can serve as a useful resource for patients and healthcare providers. With continued improvements, ChatGPT has the potential to enhance clinical counseling. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40699228What 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.