AzTrials
AzTrials

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).

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

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.

Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
  • Gaziantep City Hospital

    Gaziantep, Gaziantep

Other trials in Turkey (Türkiye)

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.

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 groups in NCT07849452
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Control groupNo interventionParticipants completed the 11 ABG cases without receiving any AI response, explanation, or recommendation
AI-Supported GroupExperimentalBefore 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.

  1. 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)
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  1. First posted30 Sep 2026
  2. Study start20 May 2026
  3. Primary completion5 Jun 2026
  4. Study completion5 Jun 2026

Resources

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)
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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in