Skip to content
Open access

AI Chatbots as a source of Ramadan medication management advice for patients with diabetes: a multilingual comparative evaluation

Aug 2026 · Frontiers in Medicine · Vol 13 · 0 citations · 17 references
Medicine

TL;DR

While most responses aligned with the IDF-DAR guideline, some harmful recommendations persisted, and response consistency fluctuated over time, the results suggest that AI chatbots should serve as a supplementary resource rather than a substitute for professional medical advice.

Abstract

Background Patients with diabetes increasingly consult artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots for medical advice, including guidance on antidiabetic medication management during Ramadan fasting, because AI can simplify and summarize long, complex guidelines. Also, in hospital settings, these tools are being used in hospitals much faster than it takes to establish formal regulations and guidelines for their use. Evaluations of the accuracy, completeness, and reproducibility of such advice across languages are still lacking. Therefore, the study aims to evaluate and compare the accuracy, completeness, safety, and reproducibility of three widely used AI chatbots—ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot—when providing antidiabetic medication adjustment advice during Ramadan in both English and Arabic. Methods Twenty-three standardized clinical scenarios covering common antidiabetic regimens were presented to each chatbot in both English and Arabic. Each query was repeated to evaluate reproducibility, resulting in 276 responses scored. Responses were assessed against the International Diabetes Federation–Diabetes and Ramadan (IDF-DAR) Guidelines using a 0–2 accuracy scale, a 0–4 completeness scale, and a 0–3 safety scale. Results Overall, 77% of responses were fully consistent with the guideline, 12% were partially consistent, and 11% (30/276) contained clinically harmful or contradictory advice; harmful responses were about twice as common in Arabic as in English (14% vs. 8%). Completeness and safety were high, with medians at the observed ceiling. In the generalized linear mixed models, chatbots did not differ significantly in accuracy, completeness, or safety, and there was no significant main effect of language or chatbot × language interaction; the strongest signals were a chatbot effect on completeness (p = 0.068) and a language effect on safety (p = 0.064), both non-significant. Two-week reproducibility was fair for accuracy (weighted κ = 0.20, p = 0.009) and completeness (κ = 0.29, p = 0.001) and showed a very low κ in the safety scale (κ = 0.02, p = 0.81). Conclusions AI chatbots demonstrated comparable performance in delivering guideline-based advice for diabetes management during Ramadan, with no significant differences in accuracy, completeness, or safety. While most responses aligned with the IDF-DAR guideline, some harmful recommendations persisted, and response consistency fluctuated over time. These results suggest that AI chatbots should serve as a supplementary resource rather than a substitute for professional medical advice.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Open access Aug 2026

Assessing the Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Medical Information Retrieval: A Structured Query-based Evaluation

Findings indicate that freely available AI chatbots may provide rapid drug information but show variable accuracy, and their responses should be verified against authoritative clinical references before use in healthcare education or practice.

S. Dhohan, Gagan D. Urs, K. Sneha et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

A real‐world analysis of AI chatbot performance for medicines information enquiries

The study results demonstrated the chatbots' responses were typically suboptimal; albeit, a significant minority prompted a follow up to review the chatbot response, and the study conforms with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Duncan Yorkston, Tracey Borrie, Paul K. L. Chin · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Multilingual Conversational AI Chatbots for Efficient Healthcare Delivery During Case History-Taking: A Systematic Review

Multilingual AI chatbots demonstrate a boost in healthcare efficiency, a reduction in language barriers, and the promotion of health equity, but exhibit challenges regarding validation, workflow integration, and evaluation standards, along with ethical issues such as privacy and bias.

R. Sharanesha, Deepti Virupakshappa, A. Abushanan et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Jul 2026

Development of an AI-driven chatbot for medication-assisted treatment standards in Scotland

This study provides the first prototype of an AI-driven chatbot specifically designed for MAT professionals, demonstrating feasibility of integrating advanced AI technologies to address information access barriers in addiction treatment.

Sandra C. Nwobi, Zainab Loukil, Abbas Jawahar · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Comparative Evaluation of ChatGPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and DeepSeek-V3.2 for Rosacea-Related Information: Accuracy, Reliability, Readability, and Reference Hallucinations

Generative AI chatbots demonstrate considerable potential as sources of health-related information for rosacea-related queries, however, variability in performance and reference hallucination rates highlights the need for careful validation before their widespread use as complementary sources of patient health informat...

Mahmut Talha Uçar, Ecem Bostan, Tulay Ortabag et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

A comparative evaluation of generative AI chatbots for patient-oriented advice on painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: safety, accuracy, guideline concordance, actionability, and readability

The five generative AI chatbots compared showed distinct performance patterns across content quality and readability, with ChatGPT generally achieved higher content-related scores, whereas Doubao scored lower.

Li-Na Gu, Zhao-Le Gong, Xiao-Li Qian et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.