ArticleChronic respiratory disease
Comparative assessment of ChatGPT and Gemini answers to common chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questions: An expert panel evaluation by pulmonologists.
Article in Chronic respiratory disease. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundAI-based chatbots are increasingly used as sources of health information. However, their reliability in delivering accurate and scientifically sound responses to patient questions remains uncertain, especially in chronic diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aims to compare the reliability of ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 2.5 Flash in providing patient-centered medical information on COPD.MethodsA total of 34 common public questions about COPD were submitted to ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 2.5 Flash. Responses were evaluated blindly by four pulmonologists across three domains: accuracy, clarity, and scientific adequacy. The mean scores and word counts were analyzed and compared via nonparametric tests.ResultsGemini 2.5 Flash outperforms ChatGPT-4o in terms of scientific adequacy (mean score: 4.69 ± 0.31 vs. 4.34 ± 0.45,
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.