ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
ChatGPT's performance on a specialist forensic pathology examination: implications for forensic pathologists and non-specialists.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. 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 based on forensic medical databases: construction, application, and prospects.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of artificially intelligent Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT is increasing rapidly in medicine, but their accuracy, reasoning quality, and contextual safety remains an issue. This is especially relevant for forensic pathology, where balanced reasoning, contextual sensitivity, and precise communication are essential. We performed an in-depth assessment of ChatGPT's capabilities and limitations for forensic pathology, which also improves our understanding of the risks and benefits of LLM use in medicine more broadly.
methodsChatGPT-4.5 Turbo's performance was tested using a multifaceted mock exam, consisting of core elements of the forensic pathology fellowship exam of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA). The mock exam included essay-style questions, image-based tasks, and case reporting. ChatGPT's responses were blindly marked by experienced examiners according to standard RCPA criteria, assessing factual accuracy, reasoning structure, and communication quality.
resultsChatGPT performed well on most essay-style knowledge questions, achieving higher scores on topics with well-established knowledge. Performance was however poor for tasks requiring complex reasoning, image interpretation, or the context-dependent analysis of autopsy findings. Importantly, ChatGPT's output was always phrased fluently and persuasively, creating an impression of confidence that was independent of factual accuracy.
conclusionsChatGPT can reliably reproduce well-established forensic pathology knowledge. However, it lacks the capabilities needed for higher-level tasks and often generates unjustifiably confident and misleading output. Its use may be acceptable for low-risk administrative or educational purposes, provided output is carefully reviewed by qualified experts. Non-specialists should not rely on such tools for forensic pathology information. Continued evaluation is needed to ensure safe and responsible use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41457196What 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.