ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
Expert evaluation of GPT-4o and Gemini responses to patient questions on carotid endarterectomy.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Quality of AI-Generated CABG Counseling: A Blinded Comparison of Two Language Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comment on "Expert evaluation of GPT-4o and Gemini responses to patient questions on carotid endarterectomy".Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Comment on "Expert evaluation of Generative Pre-trained Transformer-4o and Gemini responses to patient questions on carotid endarterectomy".Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and gemini responses to patient-oriented questions on breast cancer.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the accuracy, scientific quality, and clarity of responses generated by GPT-4o and Gemini to frequently asked patient questions related to carotid artery disease and carotid endarterectomy.
methodsIn total, 40 unique carotid endarterectomy-related questions were compiled from online sources and clinical experience. Each was entered into separate new sessions with GPT-4o and Gemini 2.5 Flash in Turkish, and responses were collected without modification. Notably, four blinded cardiovascular surgeons independently rated each answer (1-5 Likert scale) in three domains: Accuracy, Scientific Quality, and Clarity. Mean response lengths and domain scores were compared using appropriate paired tests.
resultsGPT-4o produced longer responses than Gemini (258.1±101.6 vs. 193.2±43.7 words; p<0.001). Overall, GPT-4o had higher Accuracy scores (4.33±0.39 vs. 4.16±0.33; p=0.04), with no significant differences in Scientific Quality or Clarity (p=0.377 and p=0.154, respectively). In rater-level analyses, Gemini scored higher in Clarity for one rater, whereas GPT-4o was superior in Accuracy and Scientific Quality for another. Overall mean scores were comparable (4.17±0.36 vs. 4.13±0.31; p=0.636). Physician referral was recommended in 62.5% of GPT-4o and 52.5% of Gemini (p=0.366).
conclusionBoth GPT-4o and Gemini provided "good"-quality responses to carotid endarterectomy patient questions, with GPT-4o showing a modest accuracy advantage, with no difference in other domains. Explicit disclaimers on both platforms underscore their supportive, not definitive, role in patient education. Physicians should remain the primary source for individualized decisions, and AI-generated information should always be verified.
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.