OpenEvidence Is Superior to GPT in Skin Cancer Guideline Queries
Open accessThe 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
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?
OpenEvidence provided significantly more accurate answers on skin malignancies compared to ChatGPT.
“Another evaluation found that OpenEvidence provided significantly more accurate answers on skin malignancies compared to ChatGPT [28].”
From Diagnostic performance of Prof. Valmed, ChatGPT-5 Thinking, and OpenEvidence in rheumatology: A comparative evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as [28]
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Z. Zhang, J. Zhang, L. Duan, and C. Tan, "ChatGPT in Dermatology: Exploring the Limited Utility Amidst the Tech Hype," Frontiers in Medicine 10 (2024): 1308229, https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fmed. 2023. 1308229. · DOI
- M. D. Howell, G. S. Corrado, and K. B. DeSalvo, "Three Epochs of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care," JAMA 331, no. 3 (2024): 242- 244, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1001/ jama. 2023. 25057 . · DOI · Paper page
- C. D. Schmults, R. Blitzblau, S. Z. Aasi, et al., "Basal Cell Skin Cancer, Version 2.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology," Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 21, no. 11 (2023): 1181-1203, https:// doi. org/ 10. 6004/ jnccn. 2023. 0056. · DOI
- C. D. Schmults, R. Blitzblau, S. Z. Aasi, et al., "NCCN Guidelines Insights: Squamous Cell Skin Cancer, Version 1.2022," Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 19, no. 12 (2021): 1382-1394, https:// doi. org/ 10. 6004/ jnccn. 2021. 0059. · DOI
- M. L. Elias, J. Burshtein, and V. R. Sharon, "Openai's GPT-4 Performs to a High Degree on Board-Style Dermatology Questions," International Journal of Dermatology 63, no. 1 (2024): 73-78, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ijd. 16913 . · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kremer, P., Langballe, E., Haase, I., Bamberger, J., Kuhn, S., Krusche, M., & Knitza, J. (2026) · Rheumatology International · doi:10.1007/s00296-025-06068-y · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nihal, A., Yang, K., & Pavlidakey, P. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Alabama (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nihal, Aman
- Venue
- International Journal of Dermatology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2025-06-05
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 338-339
- ISSN
- 0011-9059 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-4632
- OpenAlex
- W4411056263
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- OpenEvidence, GPT, skin cancer, large language models, evidence retrieval, dermatology
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
