ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025
The role of ChatGPT in clinical practice: perceptions, expectations and future implications amongst the clinical faculty.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Objective: Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming various industries, including healthcare. ChatGPT, introduced by OpenAI, is an advanced AI model with potential applications in medical practice. However, its reliability and effectiveness in clinical settings remain under investigation. This study explored the perspectives of healthcare professionals regarding the integration of ChatGPT in clinical practice, focusing on perceptions, expectations, and implications. Methodology: A qualitative study was conducted at Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar from 15 Results: Clinicians demonstrated varied awareness of ChatGPT, with some utilizing it for research purposes while others remained unfamiliar. Concerns regarding credibility, ethical considerations, and the potential for AI-driven misinformation were highlighted. While ChatGPT was viewed as a supportive tool in clinical workflows, reliance on AI for decision-making was questioned. Future integration requires structured implementation, training, and regulatory measures for AI. Participants emphasized the need for structured implementation, which includes safe incorporation of ChatGPT into clinical practice, formal training should enhance digital literacy and critical evaluation skills. AI tools should be incorporated into electronic medical records (EMRs) with real-time clinician oversight. A compact ethical and legal guidelines should be made to define responsibility, and pilot testing in controlled settings. Conclusion: ChatGPT holds promise for clinical practice, yet its adoption necessitates cautious implementation, clinician training, and regulatory oversight to ensure safe and ethical usage.
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.