ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2026
Gut Instincts, Machine Decisions: Evaluating AI Accuracy in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to Editor Concerning: Evaluating AI Accuracy in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Applying Rome IV Criteria to AI Models: Lessons From Pediatric Practice.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisorders of Gut-Brain Interaction (DGBIs) are common yet challenging diagnoses for gastroenterologists and primary care clinicians. Large language models (LLMs) may support clinical management, but their accuracy remains poorly defined. This study evaluated the diagnostic and treatment accuracy of five LLMs using a convenience sample of clinical scenarios from the Rome IV Multidimensional Clinical Profile (MDCP).
methodsSixty eight cases representing the DGBIs were entered into commonly accessible, untrained LLMs: ChatGPT 4.0, Google Gemini 2.5 Pro, Microsoft Copilot, OpenEvidence, and Perplexity. A standardized prompt elicited a diagnosis, treatment options, and confidence ratings for each diagnosis. Outputs were assessed against the MDCP recommendations and expert opinion. KEY
resultsDiagnostic accuracy across models demonstrated Perplexity at 74%, ChatGPT and Google Gemini at 72% respectively, and Microsoft Copilot and OpenEvidence at 65% respectively. Treatment accuracy across models demonstrated ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot generating accurate treatment options between 53% and 54% of cases each, compared with 41% for OpenEvidence and Perplexity each. No statistically significant differences were observed between AI models for diagnostic or treatment accuracy. Confidence ratings were uniformly high regardless of accuracy, with the mean scores ranging from 93% to 96% and standard deviation ranging from 1% to 4%. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Untrained LLMs demonstrated promising but imperfect diagnostic and treatment performance in this study of a convenience sample of DGBI cases. High confidence despite diagnostic errors and inconsistent treatment recommendations highlights the need for cautious clinical integration and validation.
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.