ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2026
Evaluating the role of ChatGPT in patient questions regarding drug allergies.
Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology is increasing. It takes patients with drug allergies longer to get an appointment at allergy clinics. It remains unclear whether AI technology will be able to help patients with drug allergies. In this study, we aimed to evaluate ChatGPT-5's responses to frequently asked questions about drug allergies in terms of accuracy, currency, comprehensiveness, usefulness, and clarity of language. Methods: Frequently asked real patient questions about drug allergies were reviewed by experienced allergy specialists, and the 10 most common and clinically relevant questions were submitted to ChatGPT-5. Forty independent allergy-immunology specialists reviewed these answers using a standardized rubric that evaluates accuracy, currency, comprehensiveness, usefulness, and clarity of language, each rated on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = very poor, 5 = excellent). Results: No questions received a score of 1 on any item across all domains (accuracy, currency, comprehensiveness, usefulness, and understandability). The lowest overall index score was for accuracy (median 3.9, Q1-Q3: 3.6-4.3), while the highest was for understandability (median 4.4, Q1-Q3: 3.7-4.9). Overall index scores were compared across domains, and statistically significant differences were found between accuracy and the other domains (p < 0.05), with accuracy showing relatively lower median values compared to currency, comprehensiveness, usefulness, and understandability. The overall index percentages of responses scoring ≥4 were 71.5% for accuracy, 74.8% for currency, 77.8% for comprehensiveness, 76.5% for usefulness, and 79.0% for understandability. Conclusion: ChatGPT-5 demonstrated high accuracy, currency, comprehensiveness, usefulness, and understandability. Given the higher prevalence of drug allergies and the growing patient demand for allergy immunology specialists, the support of AI models for providing information to patients about drug allergies in this regard is essential.
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.