ArticleHypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension2024
Comparing ChatGPT and Bing, in response to the Home Blood Pressure Monitoring (HBPM) knowledge checklist.
Article in Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of AI in Hypertension Health Education: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of seven large language models in providing home phototherapy care guidance for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Accuracy of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in answering clinical questions from the 2025 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions/Heart Rhythm Society left atrial appendage occlusion guidelines.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- A multi-layer retrieval-augmented large language model framework for enhancing hypertension education.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Article
- AI in Patient Care: Evaluating Large Language Model Performance Against Evidence-Based Guidelines for Pulmonary Embolism.Thoracic research and practice · 2026Article
- Examining the Performance of ChatGPT in Comprehensive Pre-Internship Exam: The Potential of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Applications of large language models in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Review
- ChatGPT Responses to Clinical Questions in the Japan Atherosclerosis Society Guidelines for Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease 2022.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2025Article
- Harnessing the Power of ChatGPT in Cardiovascular Medicine: Innovations, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Enhancing healthcare with ethical considerations in artificial intelligence.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High blood pressure is one of the major public health problems that is prevalent worldwide. Due to the rapid increase in the number of users of artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT and Bing, it is expected that patients will use these tools as a source of information to obtain information about high blood pressure. The purpose of this study is to check the accuracy, completeness, and reproducibility of answers provided by ChatGPT and Bing to the knowledge questionnaire of blood pressure control at home. In this study, ChatGPT and Bing's responses to the HBPM 10-question knowledge checklist on blood pressure measurement were independently reviewed by three cardiologists. The mean accuracy rating of ChatGPT was 5.96 (SD = 0.17) indicating the responses were highly accurate overall, with the vast majority receiving the top score. The mean accuracy and completeness of ChatGPT were 5.96 (SD = 0.17) and 2.93 (SD = 0.25) and in Bing were 5.31 (SD = 0.67), and 2.13 (SD = 0.53) Respectively. Due to the expansion of artificial intelligence applications, patients can use new tools such as ChatGPT and Bing to search for information and at the same time can trust the information obtained. we found that the answers obtained from ChatGPT are reliable and valuable for patients, while Bing is also considered a powerful tool, it has more limitations than ChatGPT, and the answers should be interpreted with caution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38438722What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.