How accurate are ChatGPT-4 responses in chronic urticaria? A critical analysis with information quality metrics
Identification
- Clé publique
- radar:r-4afab5df7acc8c38551fd38e0f4790aa
- Auteurs
- Iván Chérrez-Ojeda · Marco Faytong‐Haro · Patricio Álvarez-Muñoz · José Ignacio Larco · Erika De Arruda Chaves · Isabel Rojo · Carol Vivian Moncayo-Coello · German Dario Ramon · Gabriela Rodas‐Valero · Emek Kocatürk · Giselle S Mosnaim · Karla Robles‐Velasco
- Année déclarée
- 2025
- Langue déclarée
- en
- Type source
- article
- Première détection
- 2026-11-13T12:38:49.884520+00:00
- Dernière observation des métadonnées
- 2026-11-13T12:38:49.884520+00:00
- Dernière vérification HTTP
- Non effectuée
Institutions déclarées par la source
Universidad Espíritu Santo · Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · Fraunhofer Institute for Translational Medicine and Pharmacology · Freie Universität Berlin · Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin · Universidad Estatal de Milagro · Hospital Juárez de México · Bahçeşehir University · Endeavor Health
Pays d’affiliation déclarés
DE · EC · MX · TR · US
Résumé documentaire — langue originale
Background: The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, especially in delivering medical information, prompts concerns over the reliability and accuracy of AI-generated responses. This study evaluates the quality, reliability, and readability of ChatGPT-4 responses for chronic urticaria (CU) care, considering the potential implications of inaccurate medical information. Objective: The goal of the study was to assess the quality, reliability, and readability of ChatGPT-4 responses to inquiries on CU management in accordance with international guidelines, utilizing validated metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT-4 as a resource for medical information acquisition. Methods: LEN/EuroGuiDerm/APAAACI recommendations and utilized as prompts for ChatGPT-4 to obtain responses in individual chats for each question. The inquiries were categorized into 3 groups: A.) Classification and Diagnosis, B.) Assessment and Monitoring, and C.) Treatment and Management Recommendations. The responses were separately evaluated by allergy specialists utilizing the DISCERN instrument for quality assessment, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria for reliability evaluation, and Flesch scores for readability analysis. The scores were further examined by median calculations and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient assessments. Results: Categories A and C exhibited insufficient reliability according to JAMA, with median scores of 1 and 0, respectively. Category B exhibited a low reliability score (median 2, interquartile range 2). The information quality from category C questions was satisfactory (median 51.5, IQR 12.5). All 3 groups exhibited confusing readability levels according to the Flesch assessment. Limitations: The study's limitations encompass the emphasis on CU, possible bias in question selection, the use of particular instruments such as DISCERN, JAMA, and Flesch, as well as reliance on expert opinion for assessment. Conclusion: ChatGPT-4 demonstrates potential for producing medical content; nonetheless, its reliability is shaky underscoring the necessity for caution and confirmation when employing AI-generated medical information, especially in the management of CU.
Identifiants
- OPENALEX
- https://openalex.org/W4411306358
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.waojou.2025.101071
- PMID
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40584686
- PMCID
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/12206104
Repères documentaires
- Famille documentaire
- article
- Types déclarés par les sources
- article
- Éditeurs
- Elsevier BV
Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.
Sources
OpenAlex · Document 1
Citer cette référence
Iván Chérrez-Ojeda; Marco Faytong‐Haro; Patricio Álvarez-Muñoz; José Ignacio Larco; Erika De Arruda Chaves; Isabel Rojo; Carol Vivian Moncayo-Coello; German Dario Ramon; Gabriela Rodas‐Valero; Emek Kocatürk; Giselle S Mosnaim; Karla Robles‐Velasco. How accurate are ChatGPT-4 responses in chronic urticaria? A critical analysis with information quality metrics. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2025.101071
JSON · CSL-JSON · BibTeX · RIS · CSV · JSON-LD ·
APA, Chicago, ISO 690 : formats bibliographiques fondés sur les champs disponibles. OSCOLA / Bluebook : données structurées uniquement ; aucune conformité juridique complète n’est revendiquée sans vérification des éléments nécessaires.
- APA
- Iván Chérrez-Ojeda; Marco Faytong‐Haro; Patricio Álvarez-Muñoz; José Ignacio Larco; Erika De Arruda Chaves; Isabel Rojo; Carol Vivian Moncayo-Coello; German Dario Ramon; Gabriela Rodas‐Valero; Emek Kocatürk; Giselle S Mosnaim; Karla Robles‐Velasco. (2025). How accurate are ChatGPT-4 responses in chronic urticaria? A critical analysis with information quality metrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2025.101071
- Chicago
- Iván Chérrez-Ojeda; Marco Faytong‐Haro; Patricio Álvarez-Muñoz; José Ignacio Larco; Erika De Arruda Chaves; Isabel Rojo; Carol Vivian Moncayo-Coello; German Dario Ramon; Gabriela Rodas‐Valero; Emek Kocatürk; Giselle S Mosnaim; Karla Robles‐Velasco. How accurate are ChatGPT-4 responses in chronic urticaria? A critical analysis with information quality metrics. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2025.101071
- ISO 690
- Iván Chérrez-Ojeda; Marco Faytong‐Haro; Patricio Álvarez-Muñoz; José Ignacio Larco; Erika De Arruda Chaves; Isabel Rojo; Carol Vivian Moncayo-Coello; German Dario Ramon; Gabriela Rodas‐Valero; Emek Kocatürk; Giselle S Mosnaim; Karla Robles‐Velasco. How accurate are ChatGPT-4 responses in chronic urticaria? A critical analysis with information quality metrics. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2025.101071
Warning: Undefined array key "last_link_verified" in /home/clients/e27d81e12f04d2bfd747aa264540ac56/sites/_UDTR_APP/legal_library_reference.php on line 31
UDTR — Bibliothèque juridique mondiale des droits de la Nature. How accurate are ChatGPT-4 responses in chronic urticaria? A critical analysis with information quality metrics. Notice documentaire: https://www.declarationuniverselledesdroitsdelarbre.org/global-rights-of-nature-radar/reference/r-4afab5df7acc8c38551fd38e0f4790aa/ · Dernière vérification HTTP : non effectuée
Données de cette version figée
Dossiers et relations documentaires
Rôles des sources
Source bibliographique / publication d’origine · https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2025.101071
Un lien vers une autorité ne prouve pas à lui seul une affirmation juridique. Les résumés et les textes intégraux restent soumis aux conditions de leur source.
Statut documentaire
Pertinence à examiner
Bibliothèque
Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.