Reporting Guideline for Chatbot Health Advice Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The rise in chatbot health advice (CHA) studies is accompanied by heterogeneity in reporting standards, impacting their interpretability. Objective: To provide reporting recommendations for studies evaluating the performance of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots when summarizing clinical evidence and providing health advice. Design, Setting, and Participants: CHART was developed in several phases after performing a comprehensive systematic review to identify variation in the conduct, reporting, and methodology in CHA studies. Findings from the review were used to develop a draft checklist that was revised through an international, multidisciplinary modified asynchronous Delphi consensus process of 531 stakeholders, 3 synchronous panel consensus meetings of 48 stakeholders, and subsequent pilot testing of the checklist. Results: CHART includes 12 items and 39 subitems to promote transparent and comprehensive reporting of CHA studies. These include title (subitem 1a), abstract or summary (subitem 1b), background (subitems 2ab), model identifiers (subitem 3ab), model details (subitems 4abc), prompt engineering (subitems 5ab), query strategy (subitems 6abcd), performance evaluation (subitems 7ab), sample size (subitem 8), data analysis (subitem 9a), results (subitems 10abc), discussion (subitems 11abc), disclosures (subitem 12a), funding (subitem 12b), ethics (subitem 12c), protocol (subitem 12d), and data availability (subitem 12e). Conclusions and Relevance: The CHART checklist and corresponding methodological diagram were designed to support key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, editors, peer reviewers, and readers in reporting, understanding, and interpreting the findings of CHA studies.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Reporting · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Reporting · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.478 | 0.743 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.013 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".