ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2025
Is ChatGPT a Reliable Auxiliary Tool in Basic Life Support Training and Education? A Cross-sectional Study.
Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment: Is ChatGPT a Reliable Auxiliary Tool in Basic Life Support Training and Education? A Cross-sectional Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- From "teaching by word and deed" to "intelligent mentorship": ethical reconsiderations of AI-enabled medical education - lessons from China.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
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 and aims: The Basic Life Support (BLS) training forms an integral part of the medical education. Affordable and easily accessible auxiliary tools can aid in delivering this training to medical professionals. This cross-sectional observational study explored the utility of ChatGPT in BLS training and education. Methods: Two authors prompted 30 subjective questions based on pediatric and adult BLS on ChatGPT-4.0 10 times each, generating 600 responses. Responses were rated for accuracy using a five-point Likert scale, and repeatability was analyzed using concordance metrics, simulating varied user interactions with the chatbot. Statistical analysis was done using STATA version BE 18 software. Results: The accuracy of ChatGPT-4.0 to BLS-related responses was 48.67%, with a 95% confidence interval between 44.67 and 52.67%. The findings of the study demonstrated moderate repeatability of ChatGPT. Conclusion: ChatGPT-4.0 demonstrated moderate repeatability and limited accuracy, suggesting that while it may serve as an adjunctive self-learning tool, it cannot currently replace traditional instructor-led BLS training. Professionals should critically review and verify the ChatGPT-4.0 content before using it in BLS. How to cite this article: Gupta P, Pandey AK, Kumar A. Is ChatGPT a Reliable Auxiliary Tool in Basic Life Support Training and Education? A Cross-sectional Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(8):684-691.
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.