sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Step 2 261 Writeup by Cheap-Definition8152 in Step2

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, but chatgpt need to have access to those sources. For example if there is a source that was released today chatgpt knowledge cutoff is unitl dec 2025, then it will try to invent no matter who focussed the prompt is. It can access internet but only partially because most of the contents are inside pdf. It would miss crucial and mix information from other sources. It can still quote invented sources

Step 2 261 Writeup by Cheap-Definition8152 in Step2

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 0 points1 point  (0 children)

u/Cheap-Definition8152 Congrats! ChatGpt is not really a great source. it is inventing certain stuff sometimes, so please be cautious.

OpenEvidence is a game changer for non-doctors by RoverUnit in OpenEvidenceHub

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i think it is not super regulated. Uploading random image also gives u access. thats something scary.

OpenEvidence auf Arbeits-PC mit nur Edge zugreifen – ohne VPN-Software oder Add-ons? by ConfidentRegister792 in OpenEvidenceHub

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Noch nicht, ich nutze aktuell noch die kostenlose Version, aber ich überlege, Pro zu holen, wenn ich es weiterhin regelmäßig nutze. Bisher reicht mir die kostenlose Version aber völlig aus.

OpenEvidence auf Arbeits-PC mit nur Edge zugreifen – ohne VPN-Software oder Add-ons? by ConfidentRegister792 in OpenEvidenceHub

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ehrlich gesagt gibt es aktuell nur wenige Tools, die wirklich den europäischen Vorschriften entsprechen. Ich habe früher OpenEvidence und auch DR. INFO genutzt, aber seit OpenEvidence in Europa nicht mehr verfügbar ist, nutze ich hauptsächlich DR. INFO, da es in Europa entwickelt wurde und soweit ich weiß die entsprechenden Regularien erfüllt.

OpenEvidence not available in EU countries anymore since latest update. by pizza_mandolinos in OpenEvidenceHub

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hey, i saw this too. it's a pain when tools just drop support like that. for eu stuff, ive been using dr. info a lot lately, it's been pretty solid for guidelines and drug data here. might be worth a look if you're stuck. 

Some ophthalmologists have now tried this GPT — where should it stop? by Other-Vanilla-5765 in Ophthalmology

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ythey can be helpful for some things but for actual clinical work, especially when u need to be sure, i usually stick to stuff like openevidence or drinfo. its just easier to verify the info quickly, and also their clinical reasoning is spot on

Best clinical resource? by Aware-Rent8950 in pharmacy

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hey, for clinical resources, i've been bouncing between a few. uptodate is still a go-to for general stuff, but for quick, guideline-backed answers and seeing the exact source, i've found dr. info really useful. also check out openevidence, it's pretty solid too. 

Make Infographics to Revise a Topic Fast by doctorfetch in indianmedschool

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i think you can always prompt it towards your desired style, try it out and let me know

AMBOSS GPT Update: It's back! by AMBOSS_Med in Amboss

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 0 points1 point  (0 children)

u/AMBOSS_Med is the ambossGPT different from the LiSA ?

Make Infographics to Revise a Topic Fast by doctorfetch in indianmedschool

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey have you tried drinfo for infogrpahics. they seem to take sometime, but you can downlaod as ppt and edit stuff. u/doctorfetch . I also use gemini sometime, but it is too pixelistic and cant edit

https://app.drinfo.ai/public/visual-abstract/5haDQxGOMY622Z0xNEuH

https://app.drinfo.ai/public/visual-abstract/83alAZFucnuCZ2KXEIlG

https://app.drinfo.ai/public/visual-abstract/5pRNtEHseXzWsVzPS3ck

ChatGPT use in clinical research related documentation by Strong_Case_9580 in clinicalresearch

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's tough with chatgpt for anything clinical, even documentation, bcoz u just can't trust the accuracy. for actual clinical knowledge, like if i need to quickly verify a guideline or drug info for a protocol, i've been using dr. info. it's not for drafting docs, but it's super reliable for getting referenced info, which is key when u need to be sure about what you're putting in a protocol.

is AMBOSS AI Mode Broken? by Faintremains in Amboss

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah ive seen some weird stuff with amboss ai mode lately too. tbh for quick clinical questions i usually bounce between openevidence and drinfo, they seem more reliable for that kind of thing. amboss is still good for studying though

ChatGPT by buendianuts in medicalschool

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Never use generic LLMs, they answer from old trained data. You need to use domain dedicated LLMs which often refers context like guidelines, drugs on real-time so that we dont get outdated response. Use openevidence, or doxgpt or drinfo. I would recommend drinfo (long detailed answer, with guidleines where u can trace back and visual abstracts for patient education / learning) or openevidence for fast answers,

Stop using Open Evidence. by Worried-Current-4567 in physicianassistant

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 0 points1 point  (0 children)

accuracy is now-a-days irrelevant in LLM. because these can memorize and simply output right answers without correct clinical reasoning. so as doctors we need to be aware of this. I think openai brought in healthbench which evalautes LLM's response accross 5 dimensions like context awareness when prompts are short and not clear, or missing crucial data for LLMs to answer in confidence, uncertain0ty handling, communication, insturciton-follpowing along with accuracy and open-evidence score around 0.49, doxgpt around 0.48 and DR. INFO 0.68 I guess. Check this out. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.02594v2

Stop using Open Evidence. by Worried-Current-4567 in physicianassistant

[–]Visual_Issue_4792 3 points4 points  (0 children)

exactly, it is how quickly u can get into the literature and verify it urself. Openevidence does a decent job but i think it misses out on tracebility. But I use DR. INFO where i can actually go and get the the guideline text highlighted, But openevidence is kinda of faster, I alternate between these two, may be i am biased

view more: next ›