ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
A Guideline-Concordant Chatbot Framework for Structured Colorectal Cancer Screening: Multistage Feasibility Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening relies on structured risk assessment and guideline-concordant communication, which remain challenging to implement consistently in real-world practice. Digital tools based on large language models (LLMs) may support such workflows, but their feasibility and safety in structured screening contexts have not been well evaluated.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and evaluate a guideline-concordant chatbot framework for structured CRC screening.
methodsA multistage feasibility study was conducted. In phase 1, baseline performance of contemporary LLMs was assessed using 14 standardized CRC screening questions and validated expert-rated instruments. In phase 2, structured prompt versions were iteratively optimized based on screening guidelines and expert feedback and tested using simulated user scenarios. In phase 3, the optimized chatbot was evaluated in 50 screening-eligible adults to assess feasibility, safety, and guideline concordance.
resultsIn phase 1, both LLMs demonstrated satisfactory performance in responding to standardized CRC screening questions, with DISCERN instrument for AI-generated content scores of 12.02 (SD 0.30) for GPT-4o and 13.36 (SD 0.26) for DeepSeek-V3, Global Quality Score scores of 3.96 (SD 0.10) for GPT-4o and 4.39 (SD 0.08) for DeepSeek-V3, Natural Language Assessment Tool for AI scores of 21.41 (SD 0.34) for GPT-4o and 22.73 (SD 0.27) for DeepSeek-V3, and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool adapted for AI outputs scores of 0.900 (SD 0.016) for GPT-4o and 0.906 (SD 0.015) for DeepSeek-V3. In phase 2, iterative prompt optimization significantly improved all 6 expert-rated dialogue evaluation dimensions (all P values <.001). In phase 3, the optimized chatbot successfully collected complete CRC screening risk information and generated guideline-concordant screening recommendations for all participants (N=50). No unsafe or inappropriate outputs were identified.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated the feasibility, preliminary safety, and guideline-concordant performance of a structured chatbot framework for CRC screening communication under the study conditions. Beyond patient education, the proposed framework may support key components of the CRC screening workflow, including risk information collection, risk stratification, and generation of guideline-concordant screening recommendations. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the framework's impact on patient-centered outcomes, screening uptake, and clinical effectiveness.
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.