Observational studyPloS one2026
Human versus AI in audiological practice: A comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and physician treatment decisions in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss.
Observational study in PloS one, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeArtificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being applied in the field of audiology, demonstrating potential to support screening, diagnosis, and rehabilitation in auditory and vestibular disorders. However, its effectiveness in guiding complex therapeutic decisions-such as those for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL)-remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare treatment recommendations for ISSNHL made by medical doctors (MDs) with those proposed by an AI system (ChatGPT, GPT-4o model). The goal was to evaluate the concordance between human and AI decision-making, particularly regarding the administration of corticosteroids and adjunctive therapies, and to assess AI's potential in clinical practice.
methodsThis study is a retrospective observational analysis. Data from 86 patients diagnosed with ISSNHL were retrospectively analysed. Treatment decisions by MDs were compared with those generated by ChatGPT using anonymized patient datasets and a series of sequential prompts simulating multidisciplinary discussion. Agreement between AI and MDs was assessed using Cohen's Kappa coefficient.
resultsOverall, poor to fair agreement was observed between AI and clinician treatment decisions. ChatGPT did not recommend oral corticosteroids in 26 cases where MDs prescribed them (Kappa = 0.029) and recommended intravenous corticosteroids in 20 patients who were not treated with this approach by MDs (Kappa = 0.393). Discrepancies were also evident in recommendations for intratympanic steroids (Kappa = -0.044) and adjunctive therapies (Kappa = 0.035). These differences likely stem from the AI's rigid adherence to generalized treatment protocols and limited contextual understanding.
conclusionWhile ChatGPT (GPT-4o) shows promise in generating structured, protocol-driven suggestions, its clinical decision-making capabilities for ISSNHL remain inferior to those of experienced physicians. The AI's lack of individualized reasoning and context sensitivity resulted in frequent discordance with physician-led care. Thus, AI should currently be viewed as a supportive tool in audiological practice, with its integration requiring careful oversight and further validation in real-world clinical environments.
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.