Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis reveals variable reliability and accuracy in AI-generated responses for chronic kidney disease, suggesting careful use of AI tools in patient interaction.
Background AI tools are becoming primary information sources for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, as AI sometimes generates factual or inaccurate information, the reliability of information must be assessed. Methods This study assessed the AI-generated responses to frequently asked questions on CKD. We entered Japanese prompts with top CKD-related keywords into ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini. The Quality Analysis of Medical Artificial Intelligence (QAMAI) tool was used to evaluate the reliability of the information. Results We included 207 AI responses from 23 prompts. The AI tools generated reliable information, with a median QAMAI score of 23 (interquartile range: 7) out of 30. However, information accuracy and resource availability varied (median (IQR): ChatGPT versus Copilot versus Gemini = 18 (2) versus 25 (3) versus 24 (5), p < 0.01). Among AI tools, ChatGPT provided the least accurate information and did not provide any resources. Conclusion The quality of AI responses on CKD was generally acceptable. While most information provided was reliable and comprehensive, some information lacked accuracy and references.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Furukawa et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: