ArticleClinical transplantation2025
Accuracy, Clarity, and Comprehensiveness of ChatGPT Outputs for Commonly Asked Questions About Living Kidney Donation.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 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.
- Dermatology "AI Babylon": Cross-Language Evaluation of AI-Crafted Dermatology Descriptions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Accuracy, Clarity, and Comprehensiveness of ChatGPT Outputs for Commonly Asked Questions About Living Kidney Donation.Clinical transplantation · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe effectiveness of ChatGPT responses to common living kidney donation (LKD) queries remains unclear.
methodsWe surveyed nephrologists and living kidney donors/candidates to evaluate ChatGPT-3.5's accuracy, comprehensiveness, and clarity in answering common donation questions in English and French. Ratings used a 5-point Likert scale, with percentage agreement and modified Fleiss' Kappa measuring inter-rater consistency.
resultsThe evaluation of ChatGPT-3.5's responses varied between nephrologists and kidney donors/candidates. Nephrologists showed moderate percentage agreement for English responses (50%-59%) and poor agreement for French responses (9%-45%). Kidney donors/candidates exhibited high agreement for English (90%-100%) but low for French (0%-77%). Inter-rater agreement among nephrologists was moderate for both English (Kappa 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.79, p < 0.0001) and French (Kappa 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.77, p < 0.0001). In contrast, inter-rater agreement was poor among donors/candidates for both English (Kappa -0.10, 95% CI: -0.14, -0.07, p = 0.99) and French (Kappa -0.03, 95% CI: -0.07, 0, p = 0.81).
conclusionChatGPT 3.5's responses to common LKD queries demonstrated limited agreement among nephrologists and kidney donors/donor candidates, highlighting its lack of reliability as a supplement to existing educational materials for living kidney donor programs in English and French.
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.