Cited by 364Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilitySocial Media in Health Education

Reliability of Medical Information Provided by ChatGPT: Assessment Against Clinical Guidelines and Patient Information Quality Instrument

Open access
Walker, Harriet Louise, Ghani, Shahi, Kuemmerli, Christoph, Nebiker, Christian Andreas, Müller, Beat Peter, Raptis, Dimitri Aristotle, Staubli, Sebastian Manuel·2023·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT-4 is the latest release of a novel artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot able to answer freely formulated and complex questions. In the near future, ChatGPT could become the new standard for health care professionals and patients to access medical information. However, little is known about the quality of medical information provided by the AI. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the reliability of medical information provided by ChatGPT. METHODS: Medical information provided by ChatGPT-4 on the 5 hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) conditions with the highest global disease burden was measured with the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool. The EQIP tool is used to measure the quality of internet-available information and consists of 36 items that are divided into 3 subsections. In addition, 5 guideline recommendations per analyzed condition were rephrased as questions and input to ChatGPT, and agreement between the guidelines and the AI answer was measured by 2 authors independently. All queries were repeated 3 times to measure the internal consistency of ChatGPT. RESULTS: Five conditions were identified (gallstone disease, pancreatitis, liver cirrhosis, pancreatic cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma). The median EQIP score across all conditions was 16 (IQR 14.5-18) for the total of 36 items. Divided by subsection, median scores for content, identification, and structure data were 10 (IQR 9.5-12.5), 1 (IQR 1-1), and 4 (IQR 4-5), respectively. Agreement between guideline recommendations and answers provided by ChatGPT was 60% (15/25). Interrater agreement as measured by the Fleiss κ was 0.78 (P<.001), indicating substantial agreement. Internal consistency of the answers provided by ChatGPT was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT provides medical information of comparable quality to available static internet information. Although currently of limited quality, large language models could become the future standard for patients and health care professionals to gather medical information.

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 · 10.2196/47479

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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 output generated by Chat GPT is dependent on the complexity and clarity of the input.

    “The output generated by Chat GPT is dependent on the complexity and clarity of the input, continuous evaluation of generated output will be required to ensure safe implementation in clinical settings [32, 33].”

    From Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Powered Documentation Systems in Healthcare: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Discussion > Limitations (page unavailable) says the study used medical terms and that less technical vocabulary might have affected the results, supporting a possible effect of input wording. It does not establish that output depends on both the complexity and clarity of the input; the Discussion > Principal Findings instead reports that ChatGPT handled complex questions and spelling or grammatical errors with ease. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In practice, generative AI systems in health care have been found to experience integrity threats, such as generating disinformation and misinformation, and making biased decisions.

    “In practice, generative AI systems in health care have been found to experiencing integrity threats, such as generating disinformation and misinformation, and making biased decisions [81].”

    From Generative AI in medical practice: in-depth exploration of privacy and security challenges (2024) · cites this paper as [81]

    The Results (Consistency of ChatGPT Answers to Guideline Recommendations; page unavailable) report that ChatGPT’s answers agreed with clinical guidelines in 15 of 25 cases, supporting concern about inaccurate medical information. The Discussion (Principal Findings; page unavailable) warns of a danger of perpetuating biases, but does not report observed biased decisions or establish that ChatGPT generated deliberate disinformation. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [18]Cirrhosis in over 16s: assessment and management National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2023-06-20 https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng50/chapter/Recommendations 37797152
  2. [19]Pancreatic cancer in adults: diagnosis and management National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2023-06-20 https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng85/chapter/Recommendations-for-research 29505215

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walker, H. L., Ghani, S., Kuemmerli, C., Nebiker, C. A., Müller, B. P., Raptis, D. A., & Staubli, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • Kantonsspital Aarau (CH)
  • King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre (SA)
Corresponding author
Staubli, Sebastian Manuel
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2023-06-30
Volume
25
Pages
e47479
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4380997513
Cited by
363
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 92 · 2025: 137 · 2024: 116 · 2023: 18
FWCI
14.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
Keywords
ChatGPT-4, large language models, health information quality, clinical guidelines, gallstone disease, pancreatitis, liver cirrhosis, pancreatic cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, guideline agreement, patient information
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Health Personnel, Humans, Language, Reproducibility of Results, Internet

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