ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Perceptions of ChatGPT- and veterinarian-generated responses to pet owners' medical questions.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly significant in veterinary medicine, particularly in answering pet owners' medical questions. AI's integration could reduce veterinary professionals' workload while improving access to medical advice. However, the reliability and quality of AI-generated responses compared to veterinarians' remain unexplored. The objective was to determine whether AI-generated responses were perceived as comparable to veterinarian-generated responses. Methods: This cross-sectional study analysed the answers to a sample of pet owners' medical questions. Both a veterinarian and ChatGPT (GPT-4o, May 2024) provided answers, which were anonymised and presented in a survey distributed through mailing lists and public Facebook groups. Participants were asked to assess each response based on structure, quality, and empathy, using a five-point Likert scale. They then had to indicate whether they trusted the response, and which response they preferred. Results: Over two-thirds of the 201 participants (68%) preferred the ChatGPT-generated answers ( Limitations: This study has several limitations, including a small sample size, reliance on a single veterinarian, and use of only two Reddit-derived scenarios. Response accuracy was not assessed, and word count restrictions may have affected perceived response quality. Additionally, prior research suggests that irrelevant patient details can impact ChatGPT's accuracy, raising questions about user trust if clinical inaccuracies were present. Conclusion: AI-generated responses received higher participant ratings in structure, quality and empathy, suggesting AI may enhance veterinary client communication when used under appropriate professional supervision.
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.