ArticleCureus2026
Evaluating the Clinical Decision-Making Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Common Geriatric Syndromes Using Evidence-Based Guidelines.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT are increasingly being explored for clinical decision support, yet their role in geriatric medicine remains uncertain due to the complexity of multimorbidity and care planning. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical accuracy, completeness, and guideline alignment of ChatGPT's responses to common geriatric scenarios using standardized vignettes. Methodology Seven standardized vignettes representing common geriatric scenarios, namely, polypharmacy, falls, dementia, delirium, frailty, advance care planning, and urinary incontinence, were submitted to ChatGPT (GPT-5). Responses were evaluated by five independent consultant geriatricians using a standardized rubric across the following five domains: accuracy, completeness, guideline alignment, safety, and clarity (0-2 score per domain). Descriptive statistics summarized performance, and qualitative feedback was thematically analyzed. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Krippendorff's alpha. Results ChatGPT scored the highest in clarity (66/70) and safety (63/70), with slightly lower performance in accuracy (59/70) and completeness (55/70). Guideline alignment was generally strong (61/70). Advance care planning received the highest domain scores; urinary incontinence scored the lowest. Krippendorff's alpha showed high inter-rater agreement (0.969). Reviewers identified key omissions, such as missing assessments or guideline-recommended tools, in multiple vignettes. Conclusions ChatGPT showed potential as a supportive tool in geriatric care, offering clear and generally safe responses aligned with guidelines. However, it lacked clinical depth and missed key elements in complex scenarios. AI tools such as ChatGPT should be used with caution, under expert oversight, and not as standalone decision makers in clinical practice.
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.