ArticleSisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni2025
ChatGPT's Role in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Information: A Critical Assessment.
Article in Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni, 2025. 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.
- The Quality of AI-Generated CABG Counseling: A Blinded Comparison of Two Language Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Objectives: This research evaluates the accuracy and reliability of ChatGPT's responses to inquiries concerning coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Methods: Between December 1, 2024, and December 15, 2024, two sets of questions were used to assess ChatGPT's performance: (1) a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) sourced from official cardiovascular surgery websites, professional healthcare platforms, and social media, and (2) a list of scientific questions derived from the 2021 American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Guidelines for CABG in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and heart failure. Responses were evaluated using the modified DISCERN scoring system. To test reproducibility, each question was asked twice on separate computers within the same day. Two experienced cardiovascular surgeons independently scored the responses, and any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Results: A total of 107 FAQs were assessed, of which 88 met the inclusion criteria. Based on the modified DISCERN scale, 71 responses (80.7%) received a score of 5, while 9 responses (10.2%) were rated as 4. The highest accuracy was observed in the preoperative preparation category, where all responses achieved a perfect score. Regarding scientific questions derived from the AATS Guidelines, 15 out of 20 (75.0%) were answered thoroughly and satisfactorily. The reproducibility rate was 92.0% for FAQs and 90.0% for guideline-based questions. Conclusion: This study is the first to demonstrate that ChatGPT provides highly accurate and dependable responses regarding CABG surgery, particularly for frequently asked questions. Although performance declines slightly when addressing scientific questions based on guidelines, the reproducibility rate remains high. These findings indicate that AI-driven tools like ChatGPT could play a valuable role in patient education and enhancing public awareness about CABG surgery.
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.