Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40979917›Full record

ReviewAdvances in health information science and practice2025

The Accuracy of ChatGPT in Answering FAQs, Making Clinical Recommendations, and Categorizing Patient Symptoms: A Literature Review.

John Geracitano, Brittney Anderson, Melissa Coffel, Myles Rosenzweig, Spencer D Dorn, Saif Khairat, Jamie Conklin

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in health information science and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

John GeracitanoCarolina Health Informatics Program University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6029-1778
Brittney AndersonSchool of Public Health East Carolina University.
Melissa CoffelSchool of Nursing University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Myles RosenzweigGillings School of Global Health University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Spencer D DornSchool of Medicine University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Saif KhairatCarolina Health Informatics Program University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8992-2946
Jamie ConklinClinical Nursing Librarian in the Health Sciences Library at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Funding

Center for Virtual Care Value and Excellence (ViVE). RC2TR004380 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Saif Khairat · 2023 to 2026
$3.0M
NCATS NIH HHS RC2 TR004380
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: ChatGPT is a popular open-source large language model (LLM) that uses supervised learning to create human-like queries. In recent years, ChatGPT has generated excitement in the medical field. However, its accuracy must be carefully evaluated to determine its usefulness in patient care. In this literature review, the authors examine whether ChatGPT can accurately answer frequently asked questions (FAQs) from patients, make clinical recommendations, and effectively categorize patient symptoms. Methods: A database search in PubMed was conducted using the search terms "ChatGPT," "accuracy," and "clinical decision-making," yielding 122 unique references. Two screening stages resulted in 9 studies that met the evaluation criteria for this review. Results: Analysis of 9 studies showed that while ChatGPT can answer FAQs, offer recommendations, and categorize symptoms in less complicated scenarios, its clinical accuracy ranged from 20% to 95%. ChatGPT may be helpful in specific clinical scenarios; however, its variable accuracy makes it unsuitable as a stand-alone point-of-care product. Conclusions: ChatGPT is only adept at providing generalized recommendations when individual patient care is more suitable. Further research is needed to identify where ChatGPT delivers the most accurate responses and how it can supplement traditional care.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingSymptom AssessmentGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansChatGPTclinical decision-makingclinical recommendationsFAQspatient questionspatient symptoms

Identifiers

PMID40979917
PMCPMC12366716

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.