ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2025
Evaluation of the feasibility of artificial intelligence models as patient information advisors for human papillomavirus vaccines.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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.
- ChatGPT-4o in delirium recognition: a pilot study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveArtificial intelligence chatbots are increasingly used to disseminate health information. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, quality, and readability of responses generated by four artificial intelligence chatbots regarding human papillomavirus vaccination.
methodsFrequently asked questions about human papillomavirus vaccination were identified using a Google search tool, and these questions were posed to the ChatGPT-3.5, Gemini, Copilot artificial intelligence, and ChatGPT-4 models. Responses were assessed for accuracy (five-point Likert scale), reliability (modified DISCERN scale), quality (Global Quality Scale), and readability (Flesch Reading Ease Score). Interobserver agreement was evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient. The results were evaluated at a significance level of p<0.05. SPSS 23.0 package programme was used in the analyses.
resultsThere were significant differences between chatbots in terms of accuracy (p=0.001), reliability (p<0.001), and quality (p<0.001), but no significant difference in readability (p=0.497). ChatGPT-4 demonstrated the highest accuracy and quality, while Copilot artificial intelligence demonstrated superior reliability. All models produced responses that were moderately difficult to read. The intraclass correlation coefficient values for inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.034 to 0.512.
conclusionArtificial intelligence chatbots show promising potential for use as patient information counsellors regarding human papillomavirus vaccination. However, improvements in readability and consistent evidence-based content generation are required before widespread clinical application.
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.