Cited by 113Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in Service InteractionsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chatbots in Medicine: A Supplement, Not a Substitute

Open access
Altamimi, Ibraheem, Altamimi, Abdullah, Alhumimidi, Abdullah S, Altamimi, Abdulaziz, Temsah, Mohamad-Hani·2023·Cureus

Abstract

This editorial discusses the role of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots in the healthcare sector, emphasizing their potential as supplements rather than substitutes for medical professionals. While AI chatbots have demonstrated significant potential in managing routine tasks, processing vast amounts of data, and aiding in patient education, they still lack the empathy, intuition, and experience intrinsic to human healthcare providers. Furthermore, the deployment of AI in medicine brings forth ethical and legal considerations that require robust regulatory measures. As we move towards the future, the editorial underscores the importance of a collaborative model, wherein AI chatbots and medical professionals work together to optimize patient outcomes. Despite the potential for AI advancements, the likelihood of chatbots completely replacing medical professionals remains low, as the complexity of healthcare necessitates human involvement. The ultimate aim should be to use technology like AI chatbots to enhance patient care and outcomes, not to replace the irreplaceable human elements of healthcare.

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 · 10.7759/cureus.40922

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • Hallucinations put the whole AI chatbot data output under significant question, especially in implementing and applying AI aid into clinical practice.

    “As such, hallucinations put the whole AI chatbot data output under significant question, especially in implementing and applying AI aid into clinical practice [44,45].”

    From Reference Hallucination Score for Medical Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: Development and Usability Study (2024) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Editorial’s “Limitations of AI chatbots” section says substandard or biased data can produce harmful outputs, and “Ethical and legal considerations” discusses AI decision-making errors and safeguards for clinical use. These passages support concern about relying on chatbot outputs in healthcare, but they do not identify hallucinations as the cause or call the whole of chatbot output into question. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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: 1

  1. [9]The potential of chatbot in chiropractic practice Journal of Contemporary Chiropractic Chu EYT and Chu ECP 6 2023 https://journal.parker.edu/index.php/jcc/article/view/265

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Altamimi, I., Altamimi, A., Alhumimidi, A. S., Altamimi, A., & Temsah, M.-H.
Affiliations
King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (SA)
Corresponding author
Altamimi, Ibraheem
Venue
Cureus
Published
2023-06-25
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
e40922-e40922
ISSN
2168-8184 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4381988326
Cited by
102
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 5
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Cureus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
AI chatbots, artificial intelligence in healthcare, human-AI collaboration, ethics of AI in healthcare, AI regulation, patient education, patient outcomes

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