ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2026
Comparing physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to preterm infant care questions posted to a public medical consultation forum: evaluation study.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to compare the preterm infant care advice generated by ChatGPT with responses from neonatologists in an online medical consultation forum. STUDY
designThis cross-sectional study involving 22 evaluators (12 experienced neonatologists and 10 lay users) compared the responses of an AI chatbot (ChatGPT 4o) and online human experts to 60 preterm infant care-related questions from the "Doctor DingXiang" platform accessed in August 2024. Quantitative indicators, including readability, helpfulness, understandability, intent capture, empathy, actionability, accuracy and safety, were used for comparison. Qualitative content analyses were conducted to reveal further more detailed situational information about the differences between them.
resultsThe mean[SD] score for ChatGPT was higher than human experts on the dimensions of helpfulness (4.07 [0.78] vs 3.50 [1.04]), understandability (4.12 [0.73] vs 3.70 [1.01]), intent capture (4.12 [0.75] vs 3.62 [1.01]), empathy (3.98 [0.73] vs 3.45 [1.05]), actionability (3.97 [0.83] vs 3.37 [1.11]), accuracy (3.97 [0.73] vs 3.32 [1.01]) and safety (3.96 [0.72] vs 3.37 [0.97]). (all P <.001) ChatGPT's responses had few instances of low ratings than human experts' responses. ChatGPT provided more comprehensive and elaborative information, though its responses exhibited higher semantic richness and were more difficult to read. In contrast, human experts were better at offering personalized advice and emotional support, adjusting responses based on specific contexts.
conclusionChatGPT can provide satisfactory responses to neonatal medical inquiries. However, further improvements are necessary to enhance the precision, decision support, and contextual awareness.
Identifiers
41986670What 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.