ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Evaluating the accuracy and patient perception of AI-generated answers on pectus surgery.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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.
- Why patient organizations are important to improve care for people with Lynch syndrome.Familial cancer · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article aims to evaluate the quality of responses provided by AI systems ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 to frequently asked patient questions regarding pectus deformity.
methodIn this cross-sectional survey study, 36 frequently asked questions about pectus surgery were posed using a new Google account with no search history. The responses to the questions were recorded using the ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 AI programs. The responses were rated by 10 surgeons specialized in pectus surgery using a rating scale for relevance, accuracy, clarity, and completeness. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for interrater reliability (IRR) analysis of the evaluators' responses.
resultsIn the study, the average score for relevance was 4.79 for ChatGPT-4o and 4.86 for Gemini 1.5. According to the accuracy criterion, ChatGPT-4o had an average of 4.59, while Gemini 1.5 had 4.64. Regarding clarity, ChatGPT-4o scored an average of 4.61, and Gemini1.5 scored 4.75. No statistically significant difference was found between the responses of the two models in terms of relevance, accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Additionally, no statistical difference was found in the IRR analyses during the evaluation process. The reliability of the ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 language models was compared based on various criteria.
conclusionAs a result of this study, we believe that AI applications have a high potential in informing patients about pectus surgery. However, they cannot replace professional medical advice, and therefore, we believe that patients should consult experts to verify AI responses.
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.