ArticleRespiratory research2025
Accuracy, comprehensiveness and understandability of AI-generated answers to questions from people with COPD: the AIR-COPD Study.
Article in Respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of Large Language Models in Chronic Disease Care: Mixed Methods Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Conversational Agents for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Management: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains an underestimated and underdiagnosed condition due to low disease awareness. Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots are convenient and accessible sources of medical information, but evaluation of the quality of answers provided by patient-generated questions about COPD has not been performed to date.
objectiveTo assess and compare accuracy, comprehensiveness, understandability and reliability of different AI chatbots in response to patient-generated questions on the clinical management of COPD.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS), the European Lung Foundation (ELF), and the ERS CONNECT Clinical Research Collaboration (CRC). Fifteen real questions formulated by ELF COPD patient representatives were divided into three difficulty tiers (easy, medium, difficult) and submitted to ChatGPT (version 3.5), Bard, and Copilot. Experts assessed accuracy and comprehensiveness on a 0–10 scale; patients assessed understandability using the same scale. Reliability was assessed by two investigators. Reviewers were blinded to which AI system generated the answers, and only those who completed all evaluations were included in the analysis.
resultsChatGPT responses were the most reliable (14/15), followed by Copilot (12/15) and Bard (11/15). ChatGPT scored higher for accuracy (8.0 [7.0 – 9.0]) and comprehensiveness (8.0 [6.8 – 9.0]) than Bard (6.0 [5.0 – 8.0] and 6.0 [5.0 – 7.0]) and Copilot (6.0 [5.0 – 7.3] and 6.0 [5.0 – 8.0]) (both P < 0.001). Understandability was similar across all software (ChatGPT: 8.0 [8.0–10.0]; Bard: 9.0 [8.0–10.0]; Copilot: 9.0 [8.0–10.0]) (P = 0.53). No significant effect was detected according to the difficulty of the question.
conclusionOur findings suggest that AI chatbots, particularly ChatGPT, can provide accurate, comprehensive and understandable answers to patients’ questions.
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.