The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Early applications of ChatGPT in medical practice, education and research
Open accessAbstract
ChatGPT, which can automatically generate written responses to queries using internet sources, soon went viral after its release at the end of 2022. The performance of ChatGPT on medical exams shows results near the passing threshold, making it comparable to third-year medical students. It can also write academic abstracts or reviews at an acceptable level. However, it is not clear how ChatGPT deals with harmful content, misinformation or plagiarism; therefore, authors using ChatGPT professionally for academic writing should be cautious. ChatGPT also has the potential to facilitate the interaction between healthcare providers and patients in various ways. However, sophisticated tasks such as understanding the human anatomy are still a limitation of ChatGPT. ChatGPT can simplify radiological reports, but the possibility of incorrect statements and missing medical information remain. Although ChatGPT has the potential to change medical practice, education and research, further improvements of this application are needed for regular use in medicine.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“As touched upon in the preceding paragraph, a significant worry cited by numerous authors is the potential threat to academic integrity and the possible misuse of this technology [12,14,15,19,20,22,23,25,40-43].”
From Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [41]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Several articles voice concerns about potential academic dishonesty [12,14,15,19,20,22,23,25,40-43].”
From Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [41]
In the citing paper
“Consequently, it can respond to a wide range of domains, including medicine and healthcare.5)”
From Application of ChatGPT for Orthopedic Surgeries and Patient Care (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“One of the notable features of ChatGPT is its personalized and easy-to-understand responses, delivered efficiently within seconds.5)”
From Application of ChatGPT for Orthopedic Surgeries and Patient Care (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“While ChatGPT provides clear and detailed summaries for certain surgical treatments, it may only present the basics for others.5)”
From Application of ChatGPT for Orthopedic Surgeries and Patient Care (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., et al. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 · Cited by 4,115
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.12.23.521610 · Cited by 1,099
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6 · Cited by 1,099
Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: Ethical challenges for medical publishing
Liebrenz, M., Schleifer, R., Buadze, A., Bhugra, D., & Smith, A. (2023) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00019-5 · Cited by 594
ChatGPT and the future of medical writing
Biswas, S. (2023) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.223312 · Cited by 571
Antaki, F., Touma, S., Milad, D., El-Khoury, J., & Duval, R. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.01.22.23284882 · Cited by 563
Evaluating the Performance of ChatGPT in Ophthalmology
Antaki, F., Touma, S., Milad, D., El-Khoury, J., & Duval, R. (2023) · Ophthalmology Science · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2023.100324 · Cited by 563
ChatGPT makes medicine easy to swallow: an exploratory case study on simplified radiology reports
Jeblick, K., Schachtner, B., Dexl, J., Mittermeier, A., Stüber, A. T., Topalis, J., Weber, T., Wesp, P., Sabel, B. O., Ricke, J., et al. (2023) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-023-10213-1 · Cited by 549
Is ChatGPT Leading Generative AI? What is Beyond Expectations?
Aydın, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2023) · Academic Platform Journal of Engineering and Smart Systems · doi:10.21541/apjess.1293702 · Cited by 395
OpenAI ChatGPT Generated Literature Review: Digital Twin in Healthcare
Aydın, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2022) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4308687 · Cited by 391
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Preiksaitis, C., & Rose, C. (2023) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/48785 · Cited by 552
Chakraborty, C., Bhattacharya, M., Pal, S., & Lee, S. (2023) · Current Research in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.crbiot.2023.100164 · Cited by 311
Younis, H. A., Eisa, T. A. E., Nasser, M., Sahib, T. M., Noor, A. A., Alyasiri, O. M., Salisu, S., Hayder, I. M., & Younis, H. A. (2024) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics14010109 · Cited by 242
Sohail, S. S., Farhat, F., Himeur, Y., Nadeem, M., Madsen, D. Ø., Singh, Y., Atalla, S., & Mansoor, W. (2023) · Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2023.101675 · Cited by 192
“…Arif et al., 2023a; Marchandot et al., 2023; Arif et al., 2023b; Ufuk, 2023; Cascella et al., 2023b; Lubowitz, 2023) Mental (Subramani et al., 2023; Sedaghat, 2023; Hisan and Amri, 2023; Sallam et al., 2023; Hisan and Amri, 2023; Fatani, 2023; Lee, 2023a; Alser and Waisberg, 2023; Talan and…”
Samala, A. D., Rawas, S., Wang, T., Reed, J. M., Kim, J., Howard, N.-J., & Ertz, M. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12936-0 · Cited by 229
Metadata
- Authors
- Sedaghat, S.
- Affiliations
- University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Sedaghat, Sam
- ORCID
- Sedaghat, Sam
- Venue
- Clinical Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-05
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 278-279
- ISSN
- 1470-2118 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11046560
- OpenAlex
- W4366743045
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 35
- FWCI
- 6.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, medical education, medical practice, medical research, academic writing, patient-provider interaction, misinformation, plagiarism
- MeSH terms
- Educational Status, Health Personnel, Humans, Medicine, Students, Medical, 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
