ArticleDigital health
Generative artificial intelligence in palliative care: A comparative evaluation of ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5 as clinical decision support tools.
Article in Digital health. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT are increasingly integrated into healthcare, with potential to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes. In palliative care, where access to multidisciplinary expertise is often limited, these tools may provide support for symptom management. This study aimed to systematically compare ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5 for common palliative care symptoms across four key domains: clinical appropriateness, safety, ethical sensitivity, and understandability. Methods: Clinical scenarios representing 10 key symptoms (pain, anxiety, pressure ulcer, nausea, delirium, dyspnea, constipation, diarrhea, dry mouth, and sleep disturbance) were presented first to ChatGPT-4o and, 1 week later, to ChatGPT-5. Responses were evaluated independently by two physicians using a five-point Likert scale. Inter-rater agreement was analyzed with weighted Cohen's kappa and Spearman's correlation. The statistical analyses in this study were conducted using the Friedman test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Inter-rater agreement was consistently high across all domains (kappa 0.806-0.886, Spearman's rho 0.813-0.888; all Conclusions: ChatGPT-5 demonstrated measurable improvements over ChatGPT-4o in key domains of palliative care symptom management, while maintaining consistently high ethical sensitivity. These findings provide the first systematic evidence of the potential of generative AI, with the updated ChatGPT-5 model released in August 2025, as a complementary and reliable clinical decision support tool in palliative care.
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.