ArticleJournal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons
Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Conversational Platforms for Parental Queries on Antenatal Hydronephrosis: A Comparative Blinded Assessment.
Article in Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antenatal hydronephrosis is the most common fetal anomaly detected on routine ultrasound. Parents often seek immediate information online and turn to artificial intelligence (AI) conversational platforms, which are easily available on mobile. The accuracy and reliability of these responses in sensitive pediatric surgical contexts are unknown. Objectives: To compare the quality of responses generated by ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude to standardized parent-relevant questions on antenatal hydronephrosis. Materials and Methods: Five key questions were developed and vetted by three independent pediatric surgeons. To minimize bias, an independent person with a nonmedical background posed these questions to ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude using a standardized background scenario. Responses were documented verbatim. Three pediatric surgeons then independently assessed each response for veracity, clarity, comprehensiveness, tone, and safety, using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores were analyzed using descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA)/Kruskal-Wallis for inter-platform comparison, and intraclass correlation (ICC) for inter-rater reliability. Results: Across five assessment parameters, mean scores for the three platforms ranged between 3.53 and 4.13 on a 5-point scale. No statistically significant inter-platform differences were identified by ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests (all Conclusions: The three AI conversational platforms produced broadly comparable outputs. While responses were generally clear, reassuring, and safe, the poor-to-moderate inter-rater agreement underscores heterogeneity in expert appraisal. These findings highlight that AI platforms should be considered adjuncts rather than substitutes for professional counseling, and their evolving nature warrants ongoing evaluation.
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.