The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Artificial intelligence chatbots will revolutionize how cancer patients access information: ChatGPT represents a paradigm-shift
Open accessAbstract
On November 30, 2022, OpenAI enabled public access to ChatGPT, a next-generation artificial intelligence with a highly sophisticated ability to write, solve coding issues, and answer questions. This communication draws attention to the prospect that ChatGPT and its successors will become important virtual assistants to patients and health-care providers. In our assessments, ranging from answering basic fact-based questions to responding to complex clinical questions, ChatGPT demonstrated a remarkable ability to formulate interpretable responses, which appeared to minimize the likelihood of alarm compared with Google’s feature snippet. Arguably, the ChatGPT use case presents an urgent need for regulators and health-care professionals to be involved in developing standards for minimum quality and to raise patient awareness of current limitations of emerging artificial intelligence assistants. This commentary aims to raise awareness at the tipping point of a paradigm shift.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Similarly, ChatGPT exhibited an impressive ability to formulate interpretable responses that were easily understood when compared with Google's feature snippet [34].”
From A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education (2024) · cites this paper as [34]
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
Rajpurkar, P., Chen, E., Banerjee, O., & Topol, E. J. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01614-0 · Cited by 3,212
AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays — should professors worry?
Stokel-Walker, C. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-022-04397-7 · Cited by 543
Are ChatGPT and AlphaCode going to replace programmers?
Castelvecchi, D. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-022-04383-z · Cited by 138
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ray, P. P. (2023) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 · Cited by 2,463
Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT Tool towards ameliorating the education system
Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Khan, S., & Khan, I. H. (2023) · BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations · doi:10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100115 · Cited by 535
ChatGPT in healthcare: A taxonomy and systematic review
Li, J., Dada, A., Puladi, B., Kleesiek, J., & Egger, J. (2024) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2024.108013 · Cited by 452
Large Language Models for Chatbot Health Advice Studies: A Systematic Review
Huo, B., Boyle, A., Marfo, N., Tangamornsuksan, W., Steen, J. P., McKechnie, T., Lee, Y., Mayol, J., Antoniou, S. A., Thirunavukarasu, A. J., et al. (2025) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.57879 · Cited by 283
A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education
Albadarin, Y., Saqr, M., Pope, N., & Tukiainen, M. (2024) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-024-00138-2 · Cited by 191
Metadata
- Authors
- Hopkins, A. M., Logan, J. M., Kichenadasse, G., & Sorich, M. J.
- Affiliations
- Flinders University (AU)
- University of South Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Hopkins, Ashley M
- Venue
- JNCI Cancer Spectrum
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2023-02-21
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 2515-5091 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10013638
- OpenAlex
- W4321436564
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 100 · 2023: 81
- FWCI
- 10.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- JNCI Cancer Spectrum (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- National Health and Medical Research Council (APP2008119)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, AI chatbots, cancer patients, patient data access, virtual assistants, medical question answering, AI regulation
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Communication, Health Personnel, Humans, Neoplasms, Probability
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
