ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
When AI speaks like a specialist: ChatGPT-4 in the management of inflammatory bowel disease.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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.
- Artificial intelligence in inflammatory bowel disease: From current evidence, clinical translation, and the road to precision medicine.Chinese medical journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining traction in healthcare, especially for patients' education. Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) require continuous engagement, yet the quality of online information accessed by patients is inconsistent. ChatGPT, a generative AI model, has shown promise in medical scenarios, but its role in IBD communication needs further evaluation. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of ChatGPT-4's responses to common patient questions about IBD, compared to those provided by experienced IBD specialists. Methods: Twenty-five frequently asked questions were collected during routine IBD outpatient visits and categorized into five themes: pregnancy/breastfeeding, diet, vaccinations, lifestyle, and medical therapy/surgery. Each question was answered by ChatGPT-4 and by two expert gastroenterologists. Responses were anonymized and evaluated by 12 physicians (six IBD experts and six non-experts) using a 5-point Likert scale across four dimensions: accuracy, reliability, comprehensibility, and actionability. Evaluators also attempted to identify whether responses were AI- or human-generated. Results: ChatGPT-4 responses received significantly higher overall scores than those from human experts (mean 4.28 vs. 4.05; Conclusion: ChatGPT-4 generated high-quality, clear, and actionable responses to IBD-related patient questions, often outperforming human experts. Its outputs were frequently indistinguishable from those written by physicians, suggesting potential as a supportive tool for patient education. Nonetheless, further studies are needed to assess real-world application and ensure appropriate use in personalized clinical care.
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.