Arterial Blood Gas AnalysisABG-AI RCTNCT07849452
Expert-Validated ChatGPT Support for Arterial Blood Gas Interpretation
A study testing Expert-Validated ChatGPT Support in people with Arterial Blood Gas Analysis, run by Izmir Katip Celebi University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
This randomized controlled study evaluated whether expert-validated ChatGPT support improved arterial blood gas (ABG) interpretation performance among early-career non-specialist physicians. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Arterial Blood Gas Analysis
- What is being tested?
- Expert-Validated ChatGPT Support
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 161 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 20 May 2026to 5 Jun 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Fewer than five years of postgraduate clinical experience
- Actively involved in patient care
- Had not completed specialty training
Who cannot join
- Residents
- Specialists
- Physicians not actively assessing patients
- Incomplete, duplicate, or unmatchable pretest-posttest records
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: 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.
- Conditions
- Arterial Blood Gas Analysis
- Being tested
- Expert-Validated ChatGPT Support
- Keywords
- ChatGBT, Artificial Intelligence, Arterial Blood gas, Medical Education, Clinical Decision Support
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Expert-Validated ChatGPT SupportOther
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | No intervention | Participants completed the 11 ABG cases without receiving any AI response, explanation, or recommendation |
| AI-Supported Group | Experimental | Before each of the 11 ABG cases, participants viewed the expert-validated ChatGPT response before providing their own answers. Receives: Other: Expert-Validated ChatGPT Support |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Posttest Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy
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.
Measured: One week after baseline assessment
Secondary outcomes (19)
Change in Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy From Pretest to Posttest
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.
Measured: From baseline to one week after baseline assessment
Between-Group Difference in Change in Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy
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.
Measured: From baseline to one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Primary Acid-Base Disorder Identification Accuracy on an 11-Item 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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Acute Asthma Exacerbation Case Interpretation Score
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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Item-Level ABG Interpretation Accuracy
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.
Measured: One week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Acid-Base Compensation Assessment Accuracy on an 11-Item 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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Electrolyte and Anion Gap Assessment Accuracy on an 11-Item 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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Clinical Diagnosis Identification Accuracy on an 11-Item 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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Clinical Management Decision Accuracy on an 11-Item 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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Acute COPD Exacerbation Case Interpretation Score
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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Methanol Intoxication Case Interpretation Score
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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Diabetic Ketoacidosis Case Interpretation Score
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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Carbon Monoxide Intoxication Case Interpretation Score
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.
Measured: 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
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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Pulmonary Embolism Case Interpretation Score
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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Panic Attack With Hyperventilation Case Interpretation Score
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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Diuretic-Associated Metabolic Alkalosis Case Interpretation Score
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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Hypoglycemia Case Interpretation Score
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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding With Hypovolemic Shock Case Interpretation Score
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.
Measured: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Sep 2026
- Study start20 May 2026
- Primary completion5 Jun 2026
- Study completion5 Jun 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Arterial Blood Gas AnalysisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 161 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Izmir Katip Celebi University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Semih Musa Coşkun, Gaziantep City Hospital
- Investigators
- Coşkun, MD, Principal investigator, Gaziantep City Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07849452
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 0449
- Acronym
- ABG-AI RCT
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 18 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 30 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Expert-Validated Generative AI Support for Arterial Blood Gas Interpretation in Early-Career Non-Specialist Physicians: A Randomized Controlled Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07849452
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ABG-AI RCT / 0449
- Conditions
- Arterial Blood Gas Analysis
- Keywords
- ChatGBT, Artificial Intelligence, Arterial Blood gas, Medical Education, Clinical Decision Support
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 161 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Izmir Katip Celebi UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 20 May 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 5 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 5 Jun 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | No intervention | –Participants completed the 11 ABG cases without receiving any AI response, explanation, or recommendation |
| AI-Supported Group | Experimental | Other: Expert-Validated ChatGPT SupportBefore each of the 11 ABG cases, participants viewed the expert-validated ChatGPT response before providing their own answers. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Fewer than five years of postgraduate clinical experience
- Actively involved in patient care
- Had not completed specialty training
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Residents
- Specialists
- Physicians not actively assessing patients
- Incomplete, duplicate, or unmatchable pretest-posttest records
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Expert-Validated ChatGPT SupportBefore 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. | Other | AI-Supported Group |
Primary outcome
Posttest Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy
Time frame: 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.
19 secondary outcomes
Change in Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy From Pretest to Posttest
Time frame: From baseline to one week after baseline assessment
Between-Group Difference in Change in Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy
Time frame: From baseline to one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Primary Acid-Base Disorder Identification Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Acute Asthma Exacerbation Case Interpretation Score
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Item-Level ABG Interpretation Accuracy
Time frame: One week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Acid-Base Compensation Assessment Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Electrolyte and Anion Gap Assessment Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Clinical Diagnosis Identification Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Clinical Management Decision Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Acute COPD Exacerbation Case Interpretation Score
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Methanol Intoxication Case Interpretation Score
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Diabetic Ketoacidosis Case Interpretation Score
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Carbon Monoxide Intoxication Case Interpretation Score
Time frame: 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
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Pulmonary Embolism Case Interpretation Score
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Panic Attack With Hyperventilation Case Interpretation Score
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Diuretic-Associated Metabolic Alkalosis Case Interpretation Score
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Hypoglycemia Case Interpretation Score
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding With Hypovolemic Shock Case Interpretation Score
Time frame: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Sep 2026.
Related trials for Arterial Blood Gas Analysis
Not yet recruiting
Jigsaw and Audience Response System for Arterial Blood Gas Education
Nursing Education
Recruiting
Effect of Ventilator Hyperinflation Combined With Body Positioning on ABG in VAP
Ventilator Associated Bacterial Pneumonia (VABP), Critical Illness
RecruitingObservational study
An Investigation of The Relationship Between Muscle Mass, Physiological Parameters, and Blood Gas Levels in Adult Patients Hospitalized in The Intensive Care Unit
Intensive Care (ICU)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Hyperoxemia and Oxygen Reserve Index During Neurointerventional Anesthesia
Hyperoxia, Hyperoxemia
Recruiting
Comparison of Arterial and Capillary Blood Gas Analyses in Patients With Respiratory Distress Due to COPD or APE
Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Chronic Obstructive
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Coşkun, MD principal investigator
Gaziantep City Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Expert-Validated ChatGPT Support in people with Arterial Blood Gas Analysis, run by Izmir Katip Celebi University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Posttest Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy (time frame: One week after baseline assessment). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Sep 2026.