ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Evaluating the Accuracy of Medical Information Generated by ChatGPT and Gemini and Its Alignment With International Clinical Guidelines From the Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Comparative Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Article
- AI in respiratory care: findings from the GOLD report.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Quality, readability, and patient safety of ChatGPT-generated responses to fall-related questions in older adults: a multidisciplinary evaluation.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
backgroundAssessment of medical information provided by artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots like ChatGPT and Google's Gemini and comparison with international guidelines is a burgeoning area of research. These AI models are increasingly being considered for their potential to support clinical decision-making and patient education. However, their accuracy and reliability in delivering medical information that aligns with established guidelines remain under scrutiny.
objectiveThis study aims to assess the accuracy of medical information generated by ChatGPT and Gemini and its alignment with international guidelines for sepsis management.
methodsChatGPT and Gemini were asked 18 questions about the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, and the responses were evaluated by 7 independent intensive care physicians. The responses generated were scored as follows: 3=correct, complete, and accurate; 2=correct but incomplete or inaccurate; and 1=incorrect. This scoring system was chosen to provide a clear and straightforward assessment of the accuracy and completeness of the responses. The Fleiss κ test was used to assess the agreement between evaluators, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to test for the significance of differences between the correct responses generated by ChatGPT and Gemini.
resultsChatGPT provided 5 (28%) perfect responses, 12 (67%) nearly perfect responses, and 1 (5%) low-quality response, with substantial agreement among the evaluators (Fleiss κ=0.656). Gemini, on the other hand, provided 3 (17%) perfect responses, 14 (78%) nearly perfect responses, and 1 (5%) low-quality response, with moderate agreement among the evaluators (Fleiss κ=0.582). The Mann-Whitney U test revealed no statistically significant difference between the two platforms (P=.48).
conclusionsChatGPT and Gemini both demonstrated potential for generating medical information. Despite their current limitations, both showed promise as complementary tools in patient education and clinical decision-making. The medical information generated by ChatGPT and Gemini still needs ongoing evaluation regarding its accuracy and alignment with international guidelines in different medical domains, particularly in the sepsis field.
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.