ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Assessing the ability of ChatGPT 4.0 in generating check-up reports.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer), a generative language model, has been applied across various clinical domains. Health check-ups, a widely adopted method for comprehensively assessing personal health, are now chosen by an increasing number of individuals. This study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT 4.0's ability to efficiently provide patients with accurate and personalized health reports. Methods: A total of 89 check-up reports generated by ChatGPT 4.0 were assessed. The reports were derived from the Check-up Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College. Each report was translated into English by ChatGPT 4.0 and graded independently by three qualified doctors in both English and Chinese. The grading criteria encompassed six aspects: adherence to current treatment guidelines (Guide), diagnostic accuracy (Diagnosis), logical flow of information (Order), systematic presentation (System), internal consistency (Consistency), and appropriateness of recommendations (Suggestion), each scored on a 4-point scale. The complexity of the cases was categorized into three levels (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH). Wilcoxon rank sum test and Kruskal-Wallis test were selected to examine differences in grading across languages and complexity levels. Results: ChatGPT 4.0 demonstrated strong performance in adhering to clinical guidelines, providing accurate diagnoses, systematic presentation, and maintaining consistency. However, it struggled with prioritizing high-risk items and providing comprehensive suggestions. In the "Order" category, a significant proportion of reports contained mixed data, several reports being completely incorrect. In the "Suggestion" category, most reports were deemed correct but inadequate. No significant language advantage was observed, with performance varying across complexity levels. English reports showed significant differences in grading across complexity levels, while Chinese reports exhibited distinct performance across all categories. Conclusion: In conclusion, ChatGPT 4.0 is currently well-suited as an assistant to the chief examiner, particularly for handling simpler tasks and contributing to specific sections of check-up reports. It holds the potential to enhance medical efficiency, improve the quality of clinical check-up work, and deliver patient-centered services.
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.