ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2025
Evaluating chat generative pretrained transformer in answering questions on endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- CostWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the rising use of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), patients are increasingly questioning various aspects of these endoscopic procedures. At the same time, conversational artificial intelligence (AI) tools like chat generative pretrained transformer (ChatGPT) are rapidly emerging as sources of medical information.
aimTo evaluate ChatGPT's reliability and usefulness regarding ESD and EMR for patients and healthcare professionals.
methodsIn this study, 30 specific questions related to ESD and EMR were identified. Then, these questions were repeatedly entered into ChatGPT, with two independent answers generated for each question. A Likert scale was used to rate the accuracy, completeness, and comprehensibility of the responses. Meanwhile, a binary category (high/Low) was used to evaluate each aspect of the two responses generated by ChatGPT and the response retrieved from Google.
resultsBy analyzing the average scores of the three raters, our findings indicated that the responses generated by ChatGPT received high ratings for accuracy (mean score of 5.14 out of 6), completeness (mean score of 2.34 out of 3), and comprehensibility (mean score of 2.96 out of 3). Kendall's coefficients of concordance indicated good agreement among raters (all
conclusionChatGPT provided accurate and reliable answers in response to questions about ESD and EMR. Future studies should address ChatGPT's current limitations by incorporating more detailed and up-to-date medical information. This could establish AI chatbots as significant resource for both patients and health care professionals.
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.