Cited by 10Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Can We Trust AI Chatbots’ Answers about Disease Diagnosis and Patient Care?

Open access
Huh, Sun·2023·Journal of the Korean Medical Association

Abstract

Background: Several chatbots that utilize large language models now exist. As a particularly well-known example, ChatGPT employs an autoregressive modeling process to generate responses, predicting the next word based on previously derived words. Consequently, instead of deducing a correct answer, it arranges the most frequently appearing words in the learned data in order. Optimized for interactivity and content generation, it presents a smooth and plausible context, regardless of whether the content it presents is true. This report aimed to examine the reliability of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, in diagnosing diseases and treating patients, how to interpret its responses, and directions for future development.Current Concepts: Ten published case reports from Korea were analyzed to evaluate the efficacy of ChatGPT, which was asked to describe the correct diagnosis and treatment. ChatGPT answered 3 cases correctly after being provided with the patient’s symptoms, findings, and medical history. The accuracy rate increased to 7 out of 10 after adding laboratory, pathological, and radiological results. In one case, ChatGPT did not provide appropriate information about suitable treatment, and its response contained inappropriate content in 4 cases. In contrast, ChatGPT recommended appropriate measures in 4 cases.Discussion and Conclusion: ChatGPT’s responses to the 10 case reports could have been better. To utilize ChatGPT efficiently and appropriately, users should possess sufficient knowledge and skills to determine the validity of its responses. AI chatbots based on large language models will progress significantly, but physicians must be vigilant in using these tools in practice.

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 · 10.5124/jkma.2023.66.4.218

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 5 · Cited by 10

Authors
Huh, S.
Affiliations
Hallym University (KR)
Corresponding author
Huh, Sun
Venue
Journal of the Korean Medical Association
Published
2023-04-10
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
218-222
ISSN
  • 1975-8456 (ISSN-L)
  • 2093-5951
OpenAlex
W4367300056
Cited by
10
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Korean Medical Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, AI chatbots, disease diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, clinical decision support

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