ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2026
Assessment of ChatGPT-4.0 versus ChatGPT-Mini in Generating Guideline-Based Hypertension Content.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 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.
- Validating Artificial Intelligence before the Bedside: ChatGPT-4 vs Mini in Guideline-Based Hypertension Content.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) language models are increasingly used to generate patient education materials. However, their accuracy, completeness, and adherence to clinical guidelines remain uncertain.
objectivesTo compare ChatGPT-Mini and ChatGPT-4.0 in the generation of hypertension education content with respect to accuracy, completeness, structural quality using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), response consistency, and alignment with established guidelines.
methodsA standardized set of 31 hypertension-related questions was submitted to both models. Outputs were independently evaluated by 10 blinded clinicians using a modified EQIP score, a 5-point accuracy scale, and a 3-point completeness scale. Response consistency was assessed using BERTScore. Between-model comparisons were performed using the two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test (p < 0.05). Effect sizes were reported as Hodges-Lehmann (HL) median differences and Cliff's delta (δ), both with 95% CIs. Inter-rater reliability was estimated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; two-way random effects model, absolute agreement).
resultsCentral tendency measures favored ChatGPT-4.0, although differences were small. Median scores were as follows: accuracy, 4.10 (3.70-4.20) versus 3.73 (3.60-4.05); completeness, 1.26 (1.17-1.41) versus 1.10 (0.96-1.23); and total EQIP score, 19.5 (18.0-25.0) versus 18.5 (16.0-23.0) for ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-Mini, respectively. HL median differences were small, with 95% CIs crossing zero (accuracy: +0.37, -0.25 to +0.50; completeness: +0.16, -0.06 to +0.36; EQIP: +1.0, -1.0 to +6.0). Cliff's δ values were consistently small and positive across primary outcomes, indicating only modest stochastic dominance of ChatGPT-4.0. Identification clarity tended to be higher with ChatGPT-4.0, whereas response consistency measured by BERTScore F1 was generally higher for ChatGPT-Mini (> 0.92 versus 0.885-0.932). Inter-rater reliability was good to excellent across all measures (ICC > 0.80).
conclusionsChatGPT-4.0 demonstrated small, non-significant improvements in accuracy, completeness, and structural quality compared with ChatGPT-Mini. Effect sizes were modest, and all 95% CIs included zero. ChatGPT-Mini produced more consistent responses. These findings underscore the importance of routinely reporting effect sizes with 95% CIs and support the use of standardized evaluation methods and real-time validation frameworks for AI-generated medical education content.
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.