ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluation of ChatGPT's responses to information needs and information seeking of dementia patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Large language models for bioinformatics.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026Review
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Human evaluation of large language models in healthcare: gaps, challenges, and the need for standardization.npj health systems · 2025Article
- Health Consumers' Use and Perceptions of Health Information from Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: A Scoping Review.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- An academic evaluation of ChatGpt's ability and accuracy in creating patient education resources for rare cardiovascular diseases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Online Health Information-Seeking in the Era of Large Language Models: Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- The impact of LLM chatbots on learning outcomes in advanced driver assistance systems education.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Healthcare professionals and the public sentiment analysis of ChatGPT in clinical practice.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- What Does ChatGPT Know About Dementia? A Comparative Analysis of Information Quality.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2024Article
- Introduction to Large Language Models (LLMs) for dementia care and research.Frontiers in dementia · 2024Article
- Performance of chatbots in queries concerning fundamental concepts in photochemistry.Photochemistry and photobiologyArticle
- Exploring evaluation measures of large language models for family caregiver use: A scoping review.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many people in the advanced stages of dementia require full-time caregivers, most of whom are family members who provide informal (non-specialized) care. It is important to provide these caregivers with high-quality information to help them understand and manage the symptoms and behaviors of dementia patients. This study aims to evaluate ChatGPT, a chatbot built using the Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) large language model, in responding to information needs and information seeking of such informal caregivers. We identified the information needs of dementia patients based on the relevant literature (22 articles were selected from 2442 retrieved articles). From this analysis, we created a list of 31 items that describe these information needs, and used them to formulate 118 relevant questions. We then asked these questions to ChatGPT and investigated its responses. In the next phase, we asked 15 informal and 15 formal dementia-patient caregivers to analyze and evaluate these ChatGPT responses, using both quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (interview) approaches. In the interviews conducted, informal caregivers were more positive towards the use of ChatGPT to obtain non-specialized information about dementia compared to formal caregivers. However, ChatGPT struggled to provide satisfactory responses to more specialized (clinical) inquiries. In the questionnaire study, informal caregivers gave higher ratings to ChatGPT's responsiveness on the 31 items describing information needs, giving an overall mean score of 3.77 (SD 0.98) out of 5; the mean score among formal caregivers was 3.13 (SD 0.65), indicating that formal caregivers showed less trust in ChatGPT's responses compared to informal caregivers. ChatGPT's responses to non-clinical information needs related to dementia patients were generally satisfactory at this stage. As this tool is still under heavy development, it holds promise for providing even higher-quality information in response to information needs, particularly when developed in collaboration with healthcare professionals. Thus, large language models such as ChatGPT can serve as valuable sources of information for informal caregivers, although they may not fully meet the needs of formal caregivers who seek specialized (clinical) answers. Nevertheless, even in its current state, ChatGPT was able to provide responses to some of the clinical questions related to dementia that were asked.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.