The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ChatGPT and Physicians’ Malpractice Risk
Open accessAbstract
This JAMA Forum discusses the possibilities, limitations, and risks of physician use of large language models (such as ChatGPT) along with the improvements required to improve the accuracy of the technology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Benefits, Limits, and Risks of GPT-4 as an AI Chatbot for Medicine
Lee, P., Bubeck, S., & Petro, J. (2023) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsr2214184 · Cited by 1,738
AI-Generated Medical Advice—GPT and Beyond
Haupt, C. E., & Marks, M. (2023) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2023.5321 · Cited by 346
Assessing the utility of ChatGPT throughout the entire clinical workflow
Rao, A., Pang, M., Kim, J., Kamineni, M., Lie, W., Prasad, A. K., Landman, A., Dreyer, K. J., & Succi, M. D. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.02.21.23285886 · Cited by 134
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Mello, 2001, Of swords and shields: the role of clinical practice guidelines in medical malpractice litigation., Univ Penn Law Rev, 149, 645, 10.2307/3312867 · DOI
- Hyams, 1995, Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: a two-way street., Ann Intern Med, 122, 450, 10.7326/0003-4819-122-6-199503150-00008 · DOI
- Harrer, 2023, Attention is not all you need: the complicated case of ethically using large language models in healthcare and medicine., EBioMedicine, 90, 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104512 · DOI · Paper page
- Johnson? D, Goodman? R, Patrinely? J, . Assessing the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated medical responses: an evaluation of the Chat-GPT model.? Res Sq. Published February 28, 2023. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2566942/v1 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Creation and Adoption of Large Language Models in Medicine
Shah, N. H., Entwistle, D., & Pfeffer, M. A. (2023) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2023.14217 · Cited by 435
Putting ChatGPT’s Medical Advice to the (Turing) Test: Survey Study
Nov, O., Singh, N., & Mann, D. (2023) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/46939 · Cited by 198
Understanding Liability Risk from Using Health Care Artificial Intelligence Tools
Mello, M. M., & Guha, N. (2024) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmhle2308901 · Cited by 155
Self-citationJin, H. K., Lee, H. E., & Kim, E. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05944-8 · Cited by 85
Calibrated Language Models Must Hallucinate
Kalai, A. T., & Vempala, S. S. (2024) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing · doi:10.1145/3618260.3649777 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- Mello, M. M., & Guha, N.
- Affiliations
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mello, Michelle M.
- Venue
- JAMA Health Forum
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2023-05-18
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e231938
- ISSN
- 2689-0186 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4377010360
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 27
- FWCI
- 3.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JAMA Health Forum (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Law › Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
- Social Sciences › Law › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, physician malpractice, medical liability, artificial intelligence in healthcare, AI accuracy, clinical decision support
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Malpractice, Physicians
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: ChatGPT and Physicians’ Malpractice Risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.1938
- The paper
- Mello, M. M., & Guha, N. (2023). ChatGPT and Physicians’ Malpractice Risk. JAMA Health Forum. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.1938
