[What is the potential of ChatGPT for qualified patient information? : Attempt of a structured analysis on the basis of a survey regarding complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in rheumatology].

Introduction: The chatbot ChatGPT represents a milestone in the interaction between humans and large databases that are accessible via the internet. It facilitates the answering of complex questions by enabling a communication in everyday language. Therefore, it is a potential source of information for those who are affected by rheumatic diseases. The aim of our investigation was to find out whether ChatGPT (version 3.5) is capable of giving qualified answers regarding the application of specific methods of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in three rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). In addition, it was investigated how the answers of the chatbot were influenced by the wording of the question.

Methods: The questioning of ChatGPT was performed in three parts. Part A consisted of an open question regarding the best way of treatment of the respective disease. In part B, the questions were directed towards possible indications for the application of CAM in general in one of the three disorders. In part C, the chatbot was asked for specific recommendations regarding one of three CAM methods: homeopathy, ayurvedic medicine and herbal medicine. Questions in parts B and C were expressed in two modifications: firstly, it was asked whether the specific CAM was applicable at all in certain rheumatic diseases. The second question asked which procedure of the respective CAM method worked best in the specific disease. The validity of the answers was checked by using the ChatGPT reliability score, a Likert scale ranging from 1 (lowest validity) to 7 (highest validity).

Results: The answers to the open questions of part A had the highest validity. In parts B and C, ChatGPT suggested a variety of CAM applications that lacked scientific evidence. The validity of the answers depended on the wording of the questions. If the question suggested the inclination to apply a certain CAM, the answers often lacked the information of missing evidence and were graded with lower score values.

Conclusion: The answers of ChatGPT (version 3.5) regarding the applicability of CAM in selected rheumatic diseases are not convincingly based on scientific evidence. In addition, the wording of the questions affects the validity of the information. Currently, an uncritical application of ChatGPT as an instrument for patient information cannot be recommended.