ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Evaluation of ChatGPT-4 responses on physical activity guidance in children with cystic fibrosis: reliability, quality, and readability.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the quality, reliability, and readability of ChatGPT-4 responses related to the treatment and rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-5 as a leisure health advisor: multidimensional assessment of reliability, quality, usefulness and readability.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-4 vs. DeepSeek-V3: a comparative study of response quality, reliability, usefulness, and readability for exercise and rehabilitation strategies in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ChatGPT-4 is a widely used large language model that provides instant answers to a variety of health-related questions in different medical fields. This study aims to evaluate the reliability, quality, accuracy, and readability of ChatGPT's responses to frequently asked questions regarding physical activity in children with cystic fibrosis (CF).The responses of ChatGPT-4 to 60 frequently asked questions related to physical activity and its effects on the condition of children with CF were categorized into five thematic (S1-S5) groups. These responses were then evaluated for reliability, quality, accuracy, and readability using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool, the Global Quality Scale (GQS), a five-point Likert scale, and the Flesch Reading Ease Scale (FRE), respectively.The mean scores for mDISCERN, GQS, and accuracy ranged from 3.38 (S2) to 3.82 (S4), 3.91 (S2, S4) to 4.25 (S5), and 4.27 (S1, S4) to 4.78 (S3), with overall means of 3.5, 3.98, and 4.38, respectively. The readability mean scores varied from 29.99 (S5) to 46.31 (S3), with a total mean of 38.07. The ICC values for the mDISCERN, GQS, and accuracy were 0.746, 0.666, and 0.665, respectively.
conclusionThis study revealed that ChatGPT-4 provides moderate to high levels of reliability, quality and accuracy in responses about physical activity in children with CF. Low FRE scores showed most responses were "difficult" for the target age group. Although ChatGPT-4 serves as a useful supplementary tool for patients with CF, professional supervision and further validation are essential for safe and effective use in clinical contexts. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Physical activity benefits children with cystic fibrosis (CF), yet access to reliable, understandable educational materials is limited. AI tools like ChatGPT-4 are increasingly used in health communication, but their reliability, accuracy, and readability remain uncertain. WHAT IS NEW: • This study systematically evaluates ChatGPT-4 responses to CF-related physical activity questions, showing moderate-to-high reliability, quality, and accuracy, but low readability, highlighting the need for adaptation for pediatric use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41076450What 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.