ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
LipoAssist: a structured GPT-4-based clinical workflow for preliminary lipedema assessment.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Lipedema is a chronic adipose tissue disorder characterized by bilateral and symmetrical subcutaneous fat accumulation, predominantly affecting women. Because it is frequently confused with obesity and lymphedema, diagnosis may be delayed. This proof-of-concept study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of LipoAssist, a structured GPT-4-based clinical workflow designed for the preliminary assessment of lipedema under simulated conditions. Methods: Ten simulated clinical scenarios representing lipedema and relevant differential diagnoses were evaluated using LipoAssist. The workflow was designed to obtain a structured medical history, assess clinically relevant symptoms, and generate a standardized case summary. Three board-certified Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation specialists independently evaluated the AI-generated outputs using a 5-point Likert scale across six criteria. A total of 180 ratings were analyzed. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Kendall's coefficient of concordance. Results: The overall mean performance score was 3.55 ± 0.64. The highest scores were observed for correct understanding of the clinical condition (4.63 ± 0.49) and identification of the most likely diagnosis (4.53 ± 0.51). Lower scores were recorded for recommendations regarding further diagnostic evaluation (2.17 ± 0.83) and assessment of surgical necessity (1.93 ± 0.64). Case-summary clarity and adequacy of history taking received mean scores of 3.87 ± 0.63 and 3.73 ± 0.64, respectively. Inter-rater agreement was good (ICC = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68-0.91), and Kendall's W was 0.79. Conclusion: LipoAssist demonstrated promising performance in structured history taking, organization of clinical information, and identification of the most likely diagnosis in simulated lipedema scenarios. However, its performance was limited in advanced diagnostic recommendations and surgical decision-making. These findings support the feasibility of a structured GPT-4-based workflow under simulated conditions but do not establish clinical validity, diagnostic accuracy, or readiness for routine implementation.
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.