ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating AI-Generated Responses for Patient Counseling and Treatment Decision-Making in Melasma: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Melasma poses challenges in treatment decisions and patient counseling due to its chronic nature and variable response to therapies. Evaluating AI-generated responses from ChatGPT (OpenAI, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA) and ChatSonic (Writesonic, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA) could provide insights into their potential role in supporting dermatologists with patient counseling and treatment decision-making for melasma. Aim This study aims to compare responses generated by ChatGPT and ChatSonic for patient counseling and treatment decisions in melasma, as evaluated by senior dermatologists for satisfaction, quality, and reliability. Methodology This cross-sectional observational study, conducted virtually in January 2023, involved asking five questions each about patient counseling and treatment decision-making in melasma to ChatGPT and ChatSonic. Responses were compiled in a Microsoft Excel assessment sheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and presented in a blinded format to two senior dermatologists (Evaluators A and B) for evaluation of quality (Global Quality Score), reliability (modified DISCERN scale), and satisfaction (Likert scale). Results For patient counseling in melasma, ChatGPT responses were rated higher in satisfaction by Evaluator A, with no significant differences in quality or reliability between the two AI chatbots. For treatment decisions, Evaluator B significantly favored ChatGPT over ChatSonic in both satisfaction and quality. Conclusions AI chatbots such as ChatGPT and ChatSonic can effectively support dermatologists in patient counseling and treatment decision-making for melasma, with ChatGPT demonstrating superior satisfaction and quality.
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.