ArticleCureus2026
Applicability of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Chatbots in Medical Physics.
Article in Cureus, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim Chatbots are emerging as a new and valuable tool in healthcare, offering a wide range of applications. Their use as a tool in medical physics has immense future potential. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of three artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots - ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini - in response to questions or queries related to medical physics in oncology. Materials and methods A total of 11 questions from the field of medical physics pertaining to oncology were formulated by medical physics experts. These queries were presented to the AI chatbots - ChatGPT 5.2, DeepSeek V 3.2, and Gemini 3.0 - on a predetermined date. Responses were obtained by repeating the same question once for each chatbot. The initial responses were noted and evaluated by three experts based on their correctness, completeness, ease of understanding, reliability, and applicability in the national scenario. Results The mean correctness scores were 3.4, 3.81, and 3.09 for ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini, respectively. Regarding completeness, the DeepSeek gave the maximum responses, that is, 10 complete responses to the 11 questions. No statistically significant difference was foundin real-world applicability score for the three models. Conclusion In terms of performance metrics such as correctness, DeepSeek gave better results. None of the chatbots were seen to be good enough to replicate human intelligence in metrics such as correctness, completeness, or real-world applicability. A symbiotic collaboration between AI chatbots and medical professionals is essential for enhancing healthcare delivery.
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.