ArticleThoracic research and practice2026
Comparison of AI-based Chatbot Performance in Analyzing Clinical Scenarios versus Medical Residents: A Novel Approach in Chest Diseases Education.
Article in Thoracic research and practice, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies offer new opportunities in medical education. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of large language models, specifically ChatGPT-4 and Gemini, in analyzing clinical scenarios with that of chest diseases research assistants (residents), and to evaluate their potential roles in medical education. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis cross-sectional, comparative study included 28 resident physicians working in the department of chest diseases at a tertiary-care university hospital. Four clinical scenarios involving diagnoses of massive pulmonary embolism, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, and severe pneumonia/sepsis were presented to both participants and AI models (ChatGPT-4 and Gemini). Responses were scored by blinded experts based on current guidelines (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, Global Initiative for Asthma, American Thoracic Society).
resultsAI models achieved significantly higher scores than residents, particularly on structured questions requiring theoretical knowledge, classification skills, and the listing of contraindications (
conclusionChatGPT and Gemini have significant potential as clinical decision-support systems and educational assistants. However, rather than replacing human factors in clinical reasoning and emergency management, they should be positioned as complementary tools that accelerate physicians' access to theoretical knowledge.
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.