ArticleCroatian medical journal2026
ChatGPT and Gemini in warfarin counseling.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Quality of AI-Generated CABG Counseling: A Blinded Comparison of Two Language Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of the quality, reliability, and readability of five large language model responses to frequently asked questions on gestational hypertension.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Quality, readability, and clinical-risk signals of default public-interface LLM responses to vascular and perioperative patient questions: a cross-sectional snapshot.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the potential of ChatGPT as an educational decision-support tool for hemodialysis decision-making in nephrology training.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The importance of response generation protocols in chatbot-based patient education studies.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and gemini responses to patient-oriented questions on breast cancer.PloS one · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the accuracy, scientific adequacy, and clarity of responses provided by ChatGPT-4o and Gemini to frequently asked patients' questions about warfarin use.
methodsForty patients' questions were posed to ChatGPT and Gemini using the zero-shot method. Four cardiovascular surgeons evaluated the responses for adequacy, scientific accuracy, and clarity on a 5-point Likert scale. The first and second set of data evaluations were separated by seven days to minimize any memory effect. The experts were blinded to the type of LLM that created the response.
resultsChatGPT responses were significantly shorter (187.3±47.6 vs 291.4±98.1 words; P<0.001) but scientifically more adequate (4.38±0.30 vs 4.17±0.35; P=0.004). Gemini scored higher in terms of clarity (4.69±0.24 vs 4.48±0.33; P<0.001). The two models did not significantly differ in terms of accuracy (P = 0.606).
conclusionBoth LLMs provide reliable and understandable information for warfarin counseling. While ChatGPT provides dense and scientifically detailed responses, Gemini excels in clarity and user-friendly communication. However, expert supervision and appropriate clinical guidance are critical for safe and comprehensive guidance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41520201PMC12856749What 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.