CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 262Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence Applications

ChatGPT: friend or foe?

Open access
The Lancet Digital Health·2023·The Lancet Digital Health
DOI 10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00023-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

You would have been hard-pressed to miss the storm surrounding ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) over the past few months. News outlets and social media have been abuzz with reports on the chatbot developed by OpenAI. In response to a written prompt, ChatGPT can compose emails, write computer code, and even craft movie scripts. Researchers have also demonstrated its competency to pass medical licensing exams. But excitement has been matched by a swathe of ethical concerns that could—and perhaps should—limit its adoption

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00023-7

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The moderate level of concern about potential negative impacts, as highlighted in our study, underscores the need for further exploration of the challenges associated with ChatGPT's implementation in healthcare and education settings.

    “The moderate level of concern about potential negative impacts, as highlighted in our study, underscores the need for further exploration of the challenges associated with ChatGPT's implementation in healthcare and education settings [30].”

    From Health profession students' perceptions of ChatGPT in healthcare and education: insights from a mixed-methods study (2025) · cites this paper as [30]

    The editorial (page not provided) describes errors in proposed clinical uses of ChatGPT and says implementation in clinical practice would require manual checks. It also calls for more forethought and oversight, supporting further examination of risks. It does not address challenges of implementing ChatGPT in education settings; the moderate level of concern is presented as a finding of the citing authors’ own study, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Advanced AI tools like ChatGPT are poised to significantly impact the healthcare sector.

    “Advanced AI tools like ChatGPT are also poised to significantly impact the healthcare sector (Ali et al., 2023;Patel et al., 2023;Sallam, 2023).”

    From Navigating the perils of artificial intelligence: a focused review on ChatGPT and responsible research and innovation (2024) · cites this paper as Patel et al., 2023

  • As the output of ChatGPT can be used to train future iterations of the model, any bias present in the data may persist without human intervention.

    “Furthermore, as the output of ChatGPT can be used to train future iterations of the model, any bias present in the data may persist without human intervention [5].”

    From Ethical Considerations of Using ChatGPT in Health Care (2023) · cites this paper as [5]

  • ChatGPT has been trained to understand and generate language for conversation with users.

    “Already ChatGPT, variant of the third GPT generation, has been trained to understand and generate language for conversation with users [12,13,14].”

    From Optimizing Communication of Radiation Exposure in Medical Imaging, the Radiologist Challenge (2023) · cites this paper as [14]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Health, T. L. D.
Corresponding author
The Lancet Digital Health
Venue
The Lancet Digital Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-03
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
e102
ISSN
2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00023-7
OpenAlex
W4319301633
Cited by
257
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 116
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, chatbots, AI ethics, medical licensing examinations, AI-generated medical content, OpenAI, generative AI adoption

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