Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40849397›Full record

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 Surgery2026

Does ChatGPT update itself? Accuracy of ChatGPT in tympanostomy tube guidance: A comparative analysis with current literature.

Osman Durgut, Oğuzhan Dikici

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Osman DurgutDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Health Science University, Bursa City Hospital, T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Bursa Şehir Hastanesi Doğanköy Mahallesi, Nilüfer /Bursa, 16110, Turkey. durgutosman@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3518-2903
Oğuzhan DikiciDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Health Science University, Bursa City Hospital, T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Bursa Şehir Hastanesi Doğanköy Mahallesi, Nilüfer /Bursa, 16110, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT-4.0 in providing information on tympanostomy tube indications in children, comparing its responses with established clinical guidelines and examining its ability to update itself over time.

methodsSixteen clinical scenarios from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) guidelines were assessed using 18 specific questions. Responses were evaluated by two otolaryngologists and ChatGPT itself. The final validation was conducted by a senior otolaryngologist. Cohen's Kappa analysis was performed to assess inter-rater reliability.

resultsChatGPT-4.0 correctly answered 15.5 out of 16 scenarios (96.8%). The second-stage question of scenario 7 was evaluated as incorrect. When current literature was referenced, all responses reached 100% accuracy. Among the correct answers, 4 scenarios were not fully aligned with the guidelines. However, when responses were based on current literature, all of these answers were found to be fully compliant. The agreement among the three evaluators was perfect, as confirmed by Cohen's Kappa analysis. Despite using an updated version (ChatGPT-4.0) and over a year having passed, it was observed that ChatGPT-3.5 answered a previously incorrect scenario in the same incorrect manner. This suggests that the model may have limited capacity for self-updating over time. These findings are consistent with previous research, indicating that ChatGPT provides highly accurate responses regarding tympanostomy tube placement and largely aligns with existing guidelines.

conclusionChatGPT-4.0 demonstrates high accuracy in providing guideline-based medical information, but its ability to update itself over time appears to be limited. However, when prompted to reference current literature, its accuracy improves significantly. These findings highlight the importance of structured prompting and critical evaluation of AI-generated medical guidance.

Indexed as

Middle Ear VentilationPractice Guidelines as TopicChildGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansOtolaryngologyReproducibility of ResultsAccuracy evaluationChatGPTClinical guidelinesMedical AITympanostomy tube

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.