Evaluating the Appropriateness, Consistency, and Readability of ChatGPT in Critical Care Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We assessed 2 versions of the large language model (LLM) ChatGPT—versions 3.5 and 4.0—in generating appropriate, consistent, and readable recommendations on core critical care topics. Research Question: How do successive large language models compare in terms of generating appropriate, consistent, and readable recommendations on core critical care topics? Design and Methods: A set of 50 LLM-generated responses to clinical questions were evaluated by 2 independent intensivists based on a 5-point Likert scale for appropriateness, consistency, and readability. Results: ChatGPT 4.0 showed significantly higher median appropriateness scores compared to ChatGPT 3.5 (4.0 vs 3.0, P < .001). However, there was no significant difference in consistency between the 2 versions (40% vs 28%, P = 0.291). Readability, assessed by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, was also not significantly different between the 2 models (14.3 vs 14.4, P = 0.93). Interpretation: Both models produced “hallucinations”—misinformation delivered with high confidence—which highlights the risk of relying on these tools without domain expertise. Despite potential for clinical application, both models lacked consistency producing different results when asked the same question multiple times. The study underscores the need for clinicians to understand the strengths and limitations of LLMs for safe and effective implementation in critical care settings. Registration: https://osf.io/8chj7/
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.099 | 0.416 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".