ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Usability and adoption in a randomized trial of GutGPT a GenAI tool for gastrointestinal bleeding.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05816473 (Artificial Intelligent Clinical Decision Support System Simulation Center Study), which is not on this 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.
Artificial Intelligent Clinical Decision Support System Simulation Center Study: Trust and Usefulness of Machine Learning Risk Stratification Tool for Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding Using the Technology Acceptance Model
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5-generated clinical management recommendations for HPV infection and cervical premalignant lesions: a scenario-based expert assessment study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- From Guidelines to Real-Time Conversation: Expert-Validated Retrieval-Augmented and Fine-Tuned GPT-4 for Hepatitis C Management.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Generative AI (GenAI) may enhance clinical decision support systems (CDSS), but its impact on adoption remains unclear. We conducted a simulation-based randomized trial to evaluate whether a GenAI-enhanced CDSS, "GutGPT," improves adoption compared to an AI dashboard in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding management. Clinical trainees were randomized to either GutGPT or a comparator dashboard across three cases. The primary outcome was Behavioral Intention, from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Secondary measures included additional constructs and decision accuracy. A total of 106 participants participated (52 GutGPT, 54 comparator). GutGPT users reported higher Effort Expectancy. Behavioral Intention had no significant difference. Qualitative analysis highlighted trust and workflow concerns. These findings suggest that usability alone is insufficient to drive adoption. As this study was conducted in a simulation without real-world integration or patient outcomes, further studies are needed. (Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT05816473; Registered March 6, 2023).
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.