ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence chatbots for real-time guidance during intraoperative anesthetic crises: A simulation-based study.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 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: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used in healthcare, but their ability to interpret anesthetic monitoring data during intraoperative crises remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate AI chatbots' responses to simulated anesthetic emergencies, with a focus on visual monitor interpretation compared to contextual case information. Methods: This simulation-based study was conducted using a high-fidelity patient monitor. Twenty intraoperative emergencies were designed as static monitor images with minimal clinical context. Five AI platforms, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, and DeepSeek, were tested. Each scenario was submitted in a separate, new conversation with no advanced reasoning tools enabled. Six blinded evaluators scored 100 responses using the validated CLEAR tool. The primary outcome was the mean total score per chatbot; secondary outcomes included domain-specific scores and differences between visual and contextual scenarios. Results: ChatGPT achieved the highest mean score (4.4 ± 0.6), outperforming other platforms across all CLEAR domains ( Conclusion: Among AI chatbots, ChatGPT demonstrated the most consistent and guideline-concordant responses to simulated anesthetic crises as of March 2025. This study provides a benchmark for evaluating clinical AI performance and supports the selective integration of such tools in anesthesia decision-making workflows.
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.