%0 Journal Article
%@ 1438-8871
%I JMIR Publications
%V 27
%N 
%P e62857
%T Ability of ChatGPT to Replace Doctors in Patient Education: Cross-Sectional Comparative Analysis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease
%A Yan,Zelin
%A Liu,Jingwen
%A Fan,Yihong
%A Lu,Shiyuan
%A Xu,Dingting
%A Yang,Yun
%A Wang,Honggang
%A Mao,Jie
%A Tseng,Hou-Chiang
%A Chang,Tao-Hsing
%A Chen,Yan
%+ Center of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, No 88, Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310000, China, 86 13757118653, chenyan72_72@zju.edu.cn
%K AI-assisted
%K patient education
%K inflammatory bowel disease
%K artificial intelligence
%K ChatGPT
%K patient communities
%K social media
%K disease management
%K readability
%K online health information
%K conversational agents
%D 2025
%7 31.3.2025
%9 Original Paper
%J J Med Internet Res
%G English
%X Background: Although large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT show promise for providing specialized information, their quality requires further evaluation. This is especially true considering that these models are trained on internet text and the quality of health-related information available online varies widely. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT in the context of patient education for individuals with chronic diseases, comparing it with that of industry experts to elucidate its strengths and limitations. Methods: This evaluation was conducted in September 2023 by analyzing the responses of ChatGPT and specialist doctors to questions posed by patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We compared their performance in terms of subjective accuracy, empathy, completeness, and overall quality, as well as readability to support objective analysis. Results: In a series of 1578 binary choice assessments, ChatGPT was preferred in 48.4% (95% CI 45.9%-50.9%) of instances. There were 12 instances where ChatGPT’s responses were unanimously preferred by all evaluators, compared with 17 instances for specialist doctors. In terms of overall quality, there was no significant difference between the responses of ChatGPT (3.98, 95% CI 3.93-4.02) and those of specialist doctors (3.95, 95% CI 3.90-4.00; t524=0.95, P=.34), both being considered “good.” Although differences in accuracy (t521=0.48, P=.63) and empathy (t511=2.19, P=.03) lacked statistical significance, the completeness of textual output (t509=9.27, P<.001) was a distinct advantage of the LLM (ChatGPT). In the sections of the questionnaire where patients and doctors responded together (Q223-Q242), ChatGPT demonstrated inferior performance (t36=2.91, P=.006). Regarding readability, no statistical difference was found between the responses of specialist doctors (median: 7th grade; Q1: 4th grade; Q3: 8th grade) and those of ChatGPT (median: 7th grade; Q1: 7th grade; Q3: 8th grade) according to the Mann-Whitney U test (P=.09). The overall quality of ChatGPT’s output exhibited strong correlations with other subdimensions (with empathy: r=0.842; with accuracy: r=0.839; with completeness: r=0.795), and there was also a high correlation between the subdimensions of accuracy and completeness (r=0.762). Conclusions: ChatGPT demonstrated more stable performance across various dimensions. Its output of health information content is more structurally sound, addressing the issue of variability in the information from individual specialist doctors. ChatGPT’s performance highlights its potential as an auxiliary tool for health information, despite limitations such as artificial intelligence hallucinations. It is recommended that patients be involved in the creation and evaluation of health information to enhance the quality and relevance of the information. 
%R 10.2196/62857
%U https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e62857
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/62857