ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of the reliability and risks of ChatGPT-4o in answering pediatric cough questions: A comparative analysis between pediatricians and pediatric pulmonologists.
Article in PloS one, 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
introductionArtificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT are increasingly used by patients and healthcare professionals, yet their reliability in pediatric respiratory conditions remains unclear. This study aims to assess the trustworthiness, comprehensiveness, value, and potential dangers of ChatGPT-4o-generated responses to frequently asked questions about the management and care of cough in children. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 10 cough-related questions were selected for ChatGPT-4o. The questions and responses generated by ChatGPT-4o are presented to 32 pediatric pulmonologists and 32 pediatricians. An online questionnaire was developed for this study. Participants rated the answers generated by ChatGPT-4o on a scale of 1-10 in terms of trustworthiness, comprehensiveness, value, and danger. Higher scores indicate higher levels of trustworthiness, comprehensiveness, value and danger. In addition, a yes/no question asked participants if there was anything wrong with the answer generated by ChatGPT-4o.
resultsThe ChatGPT-4o-generated answers were generally rated by participants as trustworthy (median:6.45, IQR:1.97), valuable (median:6.15, IQR:2.30), comprehensive (median:6.15, IQR:1.83), and not dangerous (median:4.35, IQR:2.65). There was a statistically significant difference in all overall ratings between pulmonologists and pediatricians. Pediatricians rated ChatGPT-4o-generated answers as more trustworthy, valuable, comprehensive, and less dangerous compared to pediatric pulmonologists. For each of the ten questions, at least one participant indicated that there was something wrong with the ChatGPT-4o-generated response. However, for no question did the proportion of "yes" responses exceed 50%, indicating that concerns were not universally shared among participants.
conclusionOur study highlights both the potential benefits and limitations of ChatGPT-4o in providing medical information about pediatric cough. While AI-generated responses were generally rated as trustworthy and valuable, differences in assessment between pediatricians and pediatric pulmonologists emphasize the need for careful interpretation of AI-derived medical content.
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.