Can We Trust AI Chatbots’ Answers about Disease Diagnosis and Patient Care?
Open accessAbstract
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.
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?
In pharmaceutical research, ChatGPT can contribute by sifting through vast volumes of scientific literature, identifying potential drug candidates, and suggesting innovative research directions.
“In the realm of pharmaceutical research, ChatGPT can contribute by sifting through vast volumes of scientific literature, identifying potential drug candidates, and suggesting innovative research directions.”
ChatGPT can generate potential differential diagnoses by analysing patient-reported symptoms and medical history, thereby aiding healthcare providers in narrowing down diagnostic possibilities.
“ChatGPT can generate potential differential diagnoses by analysing patient-reported symptoms and medical history, thereby aiding healthcare providers in narrowing down diagnostic possibilities.”
ChatGPT can assist in drug discovery, research proposal writing, and summarising complex medical research, expediting the research process.
“It can assist in drug discovery, research proposal writing, and summarising complex medical research, expediting the research process [11,24,34,35,36,37,38].”
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
- ORCID
- Huh, Sun
- Venue
- Journal of the Korean Medical Association
- Publisher
- Korean Medical Association (KAMJE)
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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