Deze pagina is automatisch vertaald en de nauwkeurigheid van de vertaling kan niet worden gegarandeerd. Raadpleeg de Engelse versie voor een brontekst.

Expert-Validated ChatGPT Support for Arterial Blood Gas Interpretation (ABG-AI RCT)

24 september 2026 bijgewerkt door: Semih Musa Coşkun, Izmir Katip Celebi University

Expert-Validated Generative AI Support for Arterial Blood Gas Interpretation in Early-Career Non-Specialist Physicians: A Randomized Controlled Study

This randomized controlled study evaluated whether expert-validated ChatGPT support improved arterial blood gas (ABG) interpretation performance among early-career non-specialist physicians. Participants completed a baseline assessment consisting of 11 standardized clinical scenarios covering five domains of ABG interpretation. Eligible participants who entered the reassessment phase were randomly assigned to either an AI-supported group or a control group.

One week after baseline assessment, participants completed a posttest using the same clinical scenarios. The AI-supported group received expert-validated ChatGPT responses before answering each case, whereas the control group completed the assessment without AI support.

The primary outcome was posttest total ABG interpretation accuracy across 55 scored items, compared between groups after adjustment for baseline accuracy. Secondary outcomes included changes in total accuracy, domain-specific accuracy, case-level performance, and item-level accuracy.

Studie Overzicht

Toestand

Voltooid

Conditie

Interventie / Behandeling

Studietype

Ingrijpend

Inschrijving (Werkelijk)

161

Fase

  • Niet toepasbaar

Contacten en locaties

In dit gedeelte vindt u de contactgegevens van degenen die het onderzoek uitvoeren en informatie over waar dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd.

Studie Locaties

  • Turkije (Türkiye)
    • Gaziantep
      • Gaziantep, Gaziantep, Turkije (Türkiye)
        • Gaziantep City Hospital

Deelname Criteria

Onderzoekers zoeken naar mensen die aan een bepaalde beschrijving voldoen, de zogenaamde geschiktheidscriteria. Enkele voorbeelden van deze criteria zijn iemands algemene gezondheidstoestand of eerdere behandelingen.

Geschiktheidscriteria

Leeftijden die in aanmerking komen voor studie

  • Kind
  • Volwassen
  • Oudere volwassene

Accepteert gezonde vrijwilligers

Ja

Geslachten die in aanmerking komen voor studie

Allemaal

Beschrijving

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Fewer than five years of postgraduate clinical experience
  • Actively involved in patient care
  • Had not completed specialty training

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Residents
  • Specialists
  • Physicians not actively assessing patients
  • Incomplete, duplicate, or unmatchable pretest-posttest records

Studie plan

Dit gedeelte bevat details van het studieplan, inclusief hoe de studie is opgezet en wat de studie meet.

Hoe is de studie opgezet?

Ontwerpdetails

  • Primair doel: Ander
  • Toewijzing: Gerandomiseerd
  • Interventioneel model: Parallelle opdracht
  • Masker: Geen (open label)

Wapens en interventies

Deelnemersgroep / Arm
Interventie / Behandeling
Geen tussenkomst: Control group

Participants completed the 11 ABG cases without receiving any AI response, explanation, or recommendation
Experimenteel: AI-Supported Group

Before each of the 11 ABG cases, participants viewed the expert-validated ChatGPT response before providing their own answers.
Ander: Expert-Validated ChatGPT Support

Before each of the 11 arterial blood gas (ABG) cases, participants viewed a standardized ChatGPT response that had been independently validated against the expert reference key by three physician experts. The response addressed five scored domains and included a brief rationale. Participants then provided their own answers to each case.

Wat meet het onderzoek?

Primaire uitkomstmaten

Uitkomstmaat
Maatregel Beschrijving
Tijdsspanne
Posttest Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy
Tijdsspanne: One week after baseline assessment

Total accuracy across 55 scored items, comprising five scored domains for each of 11 ABG cases. Each item was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0), and total accuracy was calculated as the number of correct responses divided by 55 × 100. The primary analysis compared posttest total accuracy between the AI-supported and control groups, adjusted for baseline total accuracy.
One week after baseline assessment

Secundaire uitkomstmaten

Uitkomstmaat
Maatregel Beschrijving
Tijdsspanne
Change in Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy From Pretest to Posttest
Tijdsspanne: From baseline to one week after baseline assessment

Change in total ABG interpretation accuracy from baseline (pretest) to the one-week posttest was assessed within each study group. Total accuracy was calculated across 55 scored items as the number of correct responses divided by 55 × 100.
From baseline to one week after baseline assessment
Between-Group Difference in Change in Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy
Tijdsspanne: From baseline to one week after baseline assessment

The change in total ABG interpretation accuracy from baseline to posttest was compared between the AI-supported and control groups. Change scores were calculated as posttest accuracy minus baseline accuracy.
From baseline to one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Primary Acid-Base Disorder Identification Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

Accuracy in identifying the primary acid-base disorder was calculated as the number of correct responses across 11 arterial blood gas cases divided by 11 and multiplied by 100. Each response was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0). The outcome was the change in accuracy from baseline to posttest, calculated as posttest accuracy minus baseline accuracy and expressed in percentage points. Possible change scores ranged from -100 to +100 percentage points, with positive values indicating improved accuracy.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Acute Asthma Exacerbation Case Interpretation Score
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the acute asthma exacerbation case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Item-Level ABG Interpretation Accuracy
Tijdsspanne: One week after baseline assessment

Item-level performance was evaluated across the 55 scored items, comprising five scored domains for each of the 11 ABG cases. The probability of a correct response for individual items was compared between the AI-supported and control groups.
One week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Acid-Base Compensation Assessment Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

Accuracy in assessing acid-base compensation was calculated as the number of correct responses across 11 arterial blood gas cases divided by 11 and multiplied by 100. Each response was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0). The outcome was the change in accuracy from baseline to posttest, calculated as posttest accuracy minus baseline accuracy and expressed in percentage points. Possible change scores ranged from -100 to +100 percentage points, with positive values indicating improved accuracy.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Electrolyte and Anion Gap Assessment Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

Accuracy in assessing electrolyte and anion gap findings was calculated as the number of correct responses across 11 arterial blood gas cases divided by 11 and multiplied by 100. Each response was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0). The outcome was the change in accuracy from baseline to posttest, calculated as posttest accuracy minus baseline accuracy and expressed in percentage points. Possible change scores ranged from -100 to +100 percentage points, with positive values indicating improved accuracy.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Clinical Diagnosis Identification Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

Accuracy in identifying the most likely clinical diagnosis was calculated as the number of correct responses across 11 arterial blood gas cases divided by 11 and multiplied by 100. Each response was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0). The outcome was the change in accuracy from baseline to posttest, calculated as posttest accuracy minus baseline accuracy and expressed in percentage points. Possible change scores ranged from -100 to +100 percentage points, with positive values indicating improved accuracy.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Clinical Management Decision Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

Accuracy in selecting appropriate clinical management was calculated as the number of correct responses across 11 arterial blood gas cases divided by 11 and multiplied by 100. Each response was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0). The outcome was the change in accuracy from baseline to posttest, calculated as posttest accuracy minus baseline accuracy and expressed in percentage points. Possible change scores ranged from -100 to +100 percentage points, with positive values indicating improved accuracy.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Acute COPD Exacerbation Case Interpretation Score
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the acute COPD exacerbation case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Methanol Intoxication Case Interpretation Score
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the methanol intoxication case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Diabetic Ketoacidosis Case Interpretation Score
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the diabetic ketoacidosis case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Carbon Monoxide Intoxication Case Interpretation Score
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the carbon monoxide intoxication case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Acute Kidney Injury on Chronic Kidney Disease With Hyperkalemia Case Interpretation Score
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the acute kidney injury on chronic kidney disease with hyperkalemia case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Pulmonary Embolism Case Interpretation Score
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the pulmonary embolism case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Panic Attack With Hyperventilation Case Interpretation Score
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the panic attack with hyperventilation case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Diuretic-Associated Metabolic Alkalosis Case Interpretation Score
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the diuretic-associated metabolic alkalosis case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Hypoglycemia Case Interpretation Score
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the hypoglycemia case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding With Hypovolemic Shock Case Interpretation Score
Tijdsspanne: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the upper gastrointestinal bleeding with hypovolemic shock case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

Medewerkers en onderzoekers

Hier vindt u mensen en organisaties die betrokken zijn bij dit onderzoek.

Sponsor

Izmir Katip Celebi University

Onderzoekers

  • Hoofdonderzoeker: Coşkun, MD, Gaziantep City Hospital

Studie record data

Deze datums volgen de voortgang van het onderzoeksdossier en de samenvatting van de ingediende resultaten bij ClinicalTrials.gov. Studieverslagen en gerapporteerde resultaten worden beoordeeld door de National Library of Medicine (NLM) om er zeker van te zijn dat ze voldoen aan specifieke kwaliteitscontrolenormen voordat ze op de openbare website worden geplaatst.

Bestudeer belangrijke data

Studie start (Werkelijk)

20 mei 2026

Primaire voltooiing (Werkelijk)

5 juni 2026

Studie voltooiing (Werkelijk)

5 juni 2026

Studieregistratiedata

Eerst ingediend

18 september 2026

Eerst ingediend dat voldeed aan de QC-criteria

24 september 2026

Eerst geplaatst (Werkelijk)

30 september 2026

Updates van studierecords

Laatste update geplaatst (Werkelijk)

30 september 2026

Laatste update ingediend die voldeed aan QC-criteria

24 september 2026

Laatst geverifieerd

1 september 2026

Meer informatie

Termen gerelateerd aan deze studie

Trefwoorden

Andere studie-ID-nummers

  • 0449

Informatie over medicijnen en apparaten, studiedocumenten

Bestudeert een door de Amerikaanse FDA gereguleerd geneesmiddel

Nee

Bestudeert een door de Amerikaanse FDA gereguleerd apparaatproduct

Nee

Deze informatie is zonder wijzigingen rechtstreeks van de website clinicaltrials.gov gehaald. Als u verzoeken heeft om uw onderzoeksgegevens te wijzigen, te verwijderen of bij te werken, neem dan contact op met register@clinicaltrials.gov. Zodra er een wijziging wordt doorgevoerd op clinicaltrials.gov, wordt deze ook automatisch bijgewerkt op onze website .

Abonneren