ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating the reliability and clinical utility of artificial intelligence in first trimester prenatal screening and noninvasive prenatal testing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT-4o are increasingly utilized in prenatal care. However, their reliability and clinical applicability for healthcare providers in first-trimester screening remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability, readability, and clinical utility of ChatGPT-4o's responses to support clinicians in counseling regarding combined first-trimester screening and non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). Fifteen risk-stratified clinical scenarios were used to prompt ChatGPT-4o. Fourteen perinatologists rated the responses using mDISCERN and Global Quality Scale (GQS). Readability was assessed via five indices. Inter-rater agreement and internal consistency were evaluated using ICC and Cronbach's alpha. AI responses showed high inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.998) and internal consistency (α = 0.975). GQS and mDISCERN scores were highest in high-risk scenarios. Readability did not significantly differ across risk levels, nor correlate with quality scores. ChatGPT-4o demonstrates potential as a clinical decision-support and counseling tool for clinicians involved in prenatal screening, particularly in high-risk scenarios. Further refinement is needed for consistent performance across risk levels.
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.