ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Evaluation of ChatGPT-5.2 responses to frequently asked questions about benign bone tumors.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Patients increasingly seek health-related information through artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbots. However, the reliability and clinical quality of chatbot-generated patient information remain uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the quality and reliability of chatbot-generated responses to frequently asked patient questions regarding benign bone tumors using a structured assessment model. Methods: This descriptive and methodological study comprised twenty patient-centered commonly asked questions formulated by three fellowship-trained orthopedic oncology specialists. The inquiries encompassed diagnosis, treatment, complications, follow-up, and lifestyle-related issues pertaining to prevalent benign bone tumors. The responses produced by ChatGPT-5.2 were assessed separately by three independent orthopedic oncology specialists who had no role in formulating the questions. The quality of the response was evaluated using the Quality Analysis of Medical Artificial Intelligence (QAMAI) methodology, encompassing accuracy, clarity, relevance, completeness, citation of sources and references, and utility. Each parameter was evaluated using a five-point Likert scale. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was employed to assess interobserver reliability. Results: The greatest scores were observed in accuracy (mean score 4.27), but completeness (3.19) and the provision of sources and references (3.03) displayed somewhat lower values. The overall QAMAI score was 21.39 out of 30, reflecting good response quality consistent with the validated scoring range of 18-23 points. Interobserver agreement demonstrated good reliability for total QAMAI scores (ICC = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74-0.91). The subdomain ICC values ranged from moderate to good agreement. Conclusion: Chatbot-generated responses provide accurate and useful preliminary information on benign bone tumors. However, shortcomings in completeness and reliance on evidence-based citations indicate that chatbot outputs should be employed under the oversight of a physician. AI chatbots can aid in patient education but cannot replace clinical decision-making processes.
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.