No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 17, 2026.
Accuracy and Reliability of Chatbot Responses to Physician Questions
Rachel S. Goodman, J. Randall Patrinely, Cosby A. Stone and 32 more
JAMA Network Open · 2023
doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36483
Abstract
Question. What is the reliability of chatbot-generated responses to physician-generated medical queries?
Findings. In this cross-sectional study of 33 physicians across 17 specialties who generated 284 medical questions, chatbot generated predominantly accurate information in response to these diverse medical queries as judged by these academic physician specialists. The median accuracy score was 5.5 (between almost completely and completely correct), and the median completeness score was 3.0 (complete and comprehensive).
Meaning. Chatbot shows promise as a tool for providing accurate medical information in clinical settings.
Importance. Natural language processing tools, such as ChatGPT (generative pretrained transformer, hereafter referred to as chatbot), have the potential to radically enhance the accessibility of medical information for health professionals and patients. Assessing the safety and efficacy of these tools in answering physician-generated questions is critical to determining their suitability in clinical settings, facilitating complex decision-making, and optimizing health care efficiency.
Objective. To assess the accuracy and comprehensiveness of chatbot-generated responses to physician-developed medical queries, highlighting the reliability and limitations of artificial intelligence–generated medical information.
Design, Setting, and Participants. Thirty-three physicians across 17 specialties generated 284 medical questions that they subjectively classified as easy, medium, or hard with either binary (yes or no) or descriptive answers. The physicians then graded the chatbot-generated answers to these questions for accuracy (6-point Likert scale with 1 being completely incorrect and 6 being completely correct) and completeness (3-point Likert scale, with 1 being incomplete and 3 being complete plus additional context). Scores were summarized with descriptive statistics and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test or the Kruskal-Wallis test. The study (including data analysis) was conducted from January to May 2023.
Main Outcomes and Measures. Accuracy, completeness, and consistency over time and between 2 different versions (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) of chatbot-generated medical responses.
Results. Across all questions (n = 284) generated by 33 physicians (31 faculty members and 2 recent graduates from residency or fellowship programs) across 17 specialties, the median accuracy score was 5.5 (IQR, 4.0-6.0) (between almost completely and complete correct) with a mean (SD) score of 4.8 (1.6) (between mostly and almost completely correct). The median completeness score was 3.0 (IQR, 2.0-3.0) (complete and comprehensive) with a mean (SD) score of 2.5 (0.7). For questions rated easy, medium, and hard, the median accuracy scores were 6.0 (IQR, 5.0-6.0), 5.5 (IQR, 5.0-6.0), and 5.0 (IQR, 4.0-6.0), respectively (mean [SD] scores were 5.0 [1.5], 4.7 [1.7], and 4.6 [1.6], respectively; P =.05). Accuracy scores for binary and descriptive questions were similar (median score, 6.0 [IQR, 4.0-6.0] vs 5.0 [IQR, 3.4-6.0]; mean [SD] score, 4.9 [1.6] vs 4.7 [1.6]; P =.07). Of 36 questions with scores of 1.0 to 2.0, 34 were requeried or regraded 8 to 17 days later with substantial improvement (median score 2.0 [IQR, 1.0-3.0] vs 4.0 [IQR, 2.0-5.3]; P <.01). A subset of questions, regardless of initial scores (version 3.5), were regenerated and rescored using version 4 with improvement (mean accuracy [SD] score, 5.2 [1.5] vs 5.7 [0.8]; median score, 6.0 [IQR, 5.0-6.0] for original and 6.0 [IQR, 6.0-6.0] for rescored; P =.002).
Conclusions and Relevance. In this cross-sectional study, chatbot generated largely accurate information to diverse medical queries as judged by academic physician specialists with improvement over time, although it had important limitations. Further research and model development are needed to correct inaccuracies and for validation.
Full text
Its licence does not allow us to show the full text. Read it at PubMed Central:
Read at PubMed CentralReferences 13
- 1.
Shen Y, Heacock L, Elias J,. ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models Are Double-edged Swords. Radiology. 2023;307(2):e230163
Not in our library10.1148/radiol.230163
- 2.
Brown T, Mann B, Ryder N,. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv. Preprint posted online May 28, 2020
Not in our library10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165
- 3.
Christiano PF, Leike J, Brown T, Martic M, Legg S, Amodei D. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. arXiv. Preprint posted online February 17, 2023. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03741.pdf
Not in our library
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
Gilson A, Safranek C, Huang T,. How well does ChatGPT do when taking the Medical Licensing Exams? the implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. medRxiv. Preprint posted online December 26, 2022
Not in our library10.1101/2022.12.23.22283901
- 7.
Hosseini M, Rasmussen LM, Resnik DB. Using AI to write scholarly publications. Account Res. Published onlne January 25, 2023
Not in our library10.1080/08989621.2023.2168535
- 8.
Thorp HH. ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science. 2023;379(6630):313
Not in our library10.1126/science.adg7879
- 9.
Stokel-Walker C. ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove. Nature. 2023;613(7945):620-621
Not in our library10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
- 10.
Flanagin A, Bibbins-Domingo K, Berkwits M, Christiansen SL. Nonhuman “authors” and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge. JAMA. 2023;329(8):637-639
Not in our library10.1001/jama.2023.1344
- 11.
Goodman RS, Patrinely JR Jr, Osterman T, Wheless L, Johnson DB. On the cusp: Considering the impact of artificial intelligence language models in healthcare. Med. 2023;4(3):139-140
Not in our library10.1016/j.medj.2023.02.008
- 12.
- 13.
Venigalla A, Frankle J, Carbin M. BioMedLM: a domain-specific large language model for biomedicine. December 15, 2022. Accessed August 26, 2023. https://www.mosaicml.com/blog/introducing-pubmed-gpt
Not in our library
Cited by papers we hold 1
- Large Language Models for Chatbot Health Advice Studies · 2025No notice
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.