ChatGPT vs Claude: Scoping Review with ☸️SAIMSARA.

Name: SAIMSARA Evidence Object digital::CHATGPT_VS_CLAUDE_SS
Creator: SAIMSARA
License: https://saimsara.com/license/

SAIMSARA

doi:10.62487/saimsarafe254f1e

SAIMSARA Journal

Machine-Readable Science • ISSN 3054-3991

ChatGPT vs Claude: Scoping Review with ☸️SAIMSARA

Digital Health & Biotech

Issue 3, Volume 1, 2026

Chat with this issue

DOI: 10.62487/saimsarafe254f1e

Editorial note

• Last update: 2026-05-17 21:52:28

What is this paper about

ChatGPT vs Claude is not a contest with one winner: the evidence map shows that model performance flips by task, version, modality, and risk level across medicine, education, coding, safety, and research workflows. The full evidence map turns scattered benchmark studies into a practical guide for choosing the right model, identifying where human oversight is essential, and understanding where each system actually performs best.

Human-verified editorial review Verified by World ID proof-of-human. This editorial layer was submitted from a SAIMSARA account verified as a unique human.

Evidence preview · Did you know?

Realistic hospital medication-safety scene with clinicians checking pediatric dosage support from two AI systems.

AI can look useful in narrow care tasks

Did you know? Claude-3.0 and ChatGPT-4o achieved 100% accuracy in pediatric medication dosage calculations and were faster than nurses.

This is a strong practical signal, but it applies to a narrow task — not autonomous clinical care.

Realistic medical AI comparison scene with radiology workstations and two different diagnostic workflows.

The winner can flip inside medicine

Did you know? Claude beat ChatGPT-4o in stroke DWI interpretation, 67.2% vs 32.7%, while ChatGPT-4o beat Claude in MRI sequence classification, 97.7% vs 73.1%.

The real question is not which model is best, but which model fits the exact task, modality, and endpoint.

Realistic AI safety and cybersecurity governance scene with clinicians and engineers reviewing model-risk alerts.

Safety rankings can collapse

Did you know? Claude had lower jailbreak success than ChatGPT in CySecBench, 17% vs 65%, but a later role-play attack found both systems above 94% failure.

Governance cannot rely on one benchmark because safeguards change by version, prompt style, and attack type.

Swipe sideways on mobile · full evidence map opens after unlock

Abstract: To synthesize original comparative evidence evaluating ChatGPT and Claude across clinical, educational, technical, safety, linguistic, and research-use settings, with emphasis on whether one model shows a consistent advantage or whether performance is task- and context-dependent. The review uses 156 references and builds its evidence map from 519 original studies with 6,412,048 total participants/sample observations (topic-deduplicated ΣN). This scoping review suggests that the “ChatGPT versus Claude” question has no single winner, and that comparative performance is consistently task-, version-, modality-, and endpoint-specific. Claude tended to show advantages in structured reasoning, safety-oriented behavior, and selected diagnostic tasks such as acute ischemic stroke imaging and oncology board questions, while ChatGPT more often led in readability, speed, and patient-facing outputs such as gestational diabetes information. Both systems shared important weaknesses, including hallucinated references, jailbreak vulnerability, and clinically insufficient performance in high-stakes settings. Practically, this indicates that model choice should be matched to the specific task and that human oversight remains essential before deployment. Future research should prioritize matched, version-stamped benchmarking with standardized prompts, multimodal endpoints, and safety stress testing to clarify where each model offers durable advantages.

Keywords: ChatGPT; Claude; Large language models; Comparative evaluation; Artificial intelligence; Diagnostic accuracy; Medical question answering; Model bias; Code generation; Patient education

Review Stats

Final search date and database lock: 2026-05-14 22:02:42 CEST
Plan: Pro (expanded craft tokens; source: Semantic Scholar)
Source: Semantic Scholar
Total Abstracts/Papers: 4779
Downloaded Abstracts/Papers: 1000
Included original and non-original Abstracts/Papers (all): 531
Included original Abstracts/Papers (Vote counting by direction of effect): 519
Reference Index (links used in paper): 156
Total participants/sample observations (topic deduplicated ΣN): 6,412,048

Get access to the full paper

Unlock the full evidence map

Full paper access includes the complete human-readable review, figures, reference index, PDF export, and machine-readable Evidence JSON download.
Evidence JSON can also be purchased separately if you only need the LLM-ready object for agent, AI, or RAG workflows.
Institutional or library access? Sign in with your institution email to open all available SAIMSARA papers under your institution access arrangement.
Need a SAIMSARA review on your own topic? ☸️Request.

Reference Index (156)

[1] Intelligent (but artificial) Feedback in Spanish as a Foreign Language: Evaluation of ChatGPT and Claude as Text Correction Tools — https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2025.23827
[2] Evaluation of Advanced Artificial Intelligence Algorithms’ Diagnostic Efficacy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet Models — https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14020571
[3] Political Bias in Large Language Models: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT-4, Perplexity, Google Gemini, and Claude — https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3523764
[4] Performance of Advanced Artificial Intelligence Models in Traumatic Dental Injuries in Primary Dentition: A Comparative Evaluation of ChatGPT-4 Omni, DeepSeek, Gemini Advanced, and Claude 3.7 in Terms of Accuracy, Completeness, Response Time, and Readability — https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147778
[5] DeepSeek vs. ChatGPT vs. Claude: A Comparative Study for Scientific Computing and Scientific Machine Learning Tasks — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taml.2025.100583
[6] Evaluating LLMs for Code Generation in HRI: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude — https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2024.2439610
[7] Comparative Evaluation of Responses from ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Grok 4, and Claude Sonnet-4 Chatbots to Questions About Endodontic Iatrogenic Events — https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13202615
[8] Comparison of chatbots’ accuracy in endodontics questions in dentistry specialization exam in Türkiye: ChatGPT-4o, Gemini Advanced, Copilot, and Claude — https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-07346-8

Unlock the full paper to view the complete Reference Index.