ArticleDigital health
Retrospective modeling study of ChatGPT (GPT 4) warfarin dose adjustment in patients with INRs outside the therapeutic range.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Assessing the accuracy and educational value of ChatGPT-generated content for core topics in cardiology: a descriptive analysis at Selçuk University Cardiology Clinic.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Retrospective comparison of ChatGPT-4 treatment recommendations with real-world physician management in newly diagnosed hypertension: a single-centre study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This retrospective, modeled study evaluates the accuracy of ChatGPT (GPT-4)-based warfarin dose adjustments compared to clinician recommendations at the Cardiology Clinic of Konya City Hospital, focusing on patients with international normalized ratio (INR) values outside the therapeutic range (2-3). We hypothesized that ChatGPT could provide reliable, consistent dose guidance. Methods: We reviewed the records of warfarin-treated patients from 1 June 2022 through 24 November 2024. Clinical data used by physicians (e.g. baseline INR, warfarin indication, comorbidities, and current dose) were provided to ChatGPT to generate hypothetical weekly dose recommendations. ChatGPT's impact on INR normalization was modeled using standard dose-response assumptions and compared with actual outcomes under physician-guided therapy. Results: A total of 180 patients met the inclusion criteria. ChatGPT's recommended doses were within ±1 mg/week of physician prescriptions in 74% of cases and within ±2 mg/week in 84%. The mean physician dose was 28.0 ± 6.1 mg/week versus ChatGPT's 27.5 ± 5.9 mg/week ( Conclusion: In this retrospective, exploratory analysis with modeled outcomes, ChatGPT's weekly dose suggestions showed high concordance with clinician dosing. These findings are hypothesis-generating and do not establish clinical efficacy or safety; prospective, physician-supervised trials-potentially integrated with home INR monitoring-are required for validation.
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.