Do bots provide correct and adequate guidance regarding acidity: A blinded comparison rated by patients and physicians

doi:10.5662/wjm.v16.i3.116022

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 16, Issue 3

This Article

(21)

(24)

(0)

(369)

Peer-Review Report of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Supplementary Materials of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Methodology

ISSN

2222-0682

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Observational Study

Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. No commercial re-use. See permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.

World J Methodol. Sep 20, 2026; 16(3): 116022
Published online Sep 20, 2026. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v16.i3.116022

Table 7 Categorical patient assessment of responses from ChatGPT-5, Gemini-2.5, and Claude-4

Characteristics	ChatGPT-5^a	Gemini-2.5^a	Claude-4^a	P value
Comprehensiveness
Minimal	3 (7.7)	3 (7.7)	2 (5.1)	< 0.05
Moderately	29 (74.4)	24 (61.5)	23 (59.0)
Highly	7 (17.9)	13 (33.3)	14 (38.9)
Actionability
Slightly actionable	8 (22.2)	1 (2.6)	2 (5.1)	< 0.05
Moderately actionable	27 (69.2)	13 (33.3)	18 (46.2)
Actionable	2 (5.1)	18 (46.2)	16 (41.0)
Highly actionable	2 (5.1)	7 (17.9)	3 (7.7)
Empathy
Minimally empathetic	15 (38.5)	1 (2.6)	1 (2.6)	< 0.05
Moderately empathetic	21 (53.8)	23 59.0)	24 (61.5)
Highly empathetic	3 (8.3)	15 (38.5)	14 (35.9)

^aP < 0.05.

P values indicate pairwise comparisons (ChatGPT-5 vs Gemini-2.5, ChatGPT-5 vs Claude-4a, Gemini-2.5 vs Claude-4a). Patient ratings of comprehensiveness, actionability, and empathy are presented as n (%) across categorical levels (minimal, moderate, high). Comparisons between models were performed using χ² tests, with P < 0.05 indicating statistical significance.

Full Size Table

Citation: Goyal K, Goyal MK, Taranikanti V, Wander P, Chowdhary R, Kalra S, Prashar G, Vuthaluru AR, Goyal O. Do bots provide correct and adequate guidance regarding acidity: A blinded comparison rated by patients and physicians. World J Methodol 2026; 16(3): 116022
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2222-0682/full/v16/i3/116022.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v16.i3.116022

Goyal K, Goyal MK, Taranikanti V, Wander P, Chowdhary R, Kalra S, Prashar G, Vuthaluru AR, Goyal O. Do bots provide correct and adequate guidance regarding acidity: A blinded comparison rated by patients and physicians. World J Methodol 2026; 16(3): 116022 [DOI: 10.5662/wjm.v16.i3.116022]

All content on this site: Copyright © 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.