ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
MicrotiaGPT: Appraisal of Microtia Care Recommendations From an Artificially Intelligent Chatbot.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Evaluate the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and similarity to provider response of ChatGPT-4o in providing patient education regarding microtia and aural atresia management. Methods: Ten standardized inquiries were created across three domains (General Information, Hearing/Anatomy, Treatment Decision-Making) and entered into ChatGPT-4o. Responses were evaluated by an international multidisciplinary cohort of 23 experts, including pediatric otolaryngologists and audiologists. Using 5-point Likert scales, graders assessed factual accuracy, comprehensiveness, similarity to physician responses, and overall quality. Readability was analyzed using Flesch-Kincaid metrics. Results: ChatGPT-generated responses demonstrated high accuracy (mean = 4.03 [SD = 0.66]), comprehensiveness (mean = 4.18 [SD = 0.54]), and similarity to the provider's response (4.02 [0.70]). Audiologists assigned significantly lower ratings than pediatric otolaryngologists regarding accuracy (mean = 3.76 vs. 4.13; Conclusion: ChatGPT-4o provides reliable introductory information but lacks the technical nuance and multidisciplinary coordination essential for complex microtia care. While a useful adjunct for early information-seeking, ChatGPT-4o lacks the multidisciplinary framing and depth required for ideal counseling.
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.