Abstract
Objectives To describe the design, operational safeguards, and early use of ChatIBD, a specialty-specific generative AI platform for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), during its first 6 months of live deployment.
Methods ChatIBD is an online question-answering platform that uses retrieval-augmented generation over a curated corpus of IBD guidelines. Queries undergo hybrid semantic and keyword retrieval with query expansion and reranking, and the model is instructed to answer only from retrieved material and return linked citations. Safeguards include fixed medication dosing information from European Medicines Agency (EMA), user feedback capture, and clinician review of flagged outputs. We performed a descriptive service evaluation of aggregated, de-identified platform metrics collected between 1 October 2025 and 1 April 2026.
Results During the study period, ChatIBD registered 913 users and processed 7,222 messages across 3,855 conversations. Activity was recorded across 69 countries and 28 languages, with the highest message volumes from the United Kingdom (27.1%) and Spain (12.3%). Median daily message volume was 35.5 (IQR 20 to 52), and 85.1% of messages were submitted on weekdays. Medication-related queries accounted for the largest use domain, while guideline synthesis was the most frequent inferred intent. Sixteen explicit feedback events were recorded, including one negative rating that triggered clinician review and system changes.
Conclusions ChatIBD showed early international uptake and repeat use as a specialty-specific, retrieval-grounded generative AI tool for IBD professionals. These findings support the feasibility of deploying a guideline-grounded clinical AI service with practical safeguards, but do not establish response accuracy, safety, or clinical effectiveness. Formal validation is in progress.
What is already known on this topic General-purpose large language models are increasingly being used informally by clinicians, but concerns remain about hallucinated content, unverifiable recommendations, and poor traceability to specialty-specific sources.
What this study adds This study describes the early deployment of ChatIBD, a specialty-specific retrieval-grounded generative AI tool for IBD professionals, and the safeguards used in its live operation.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy Early evaluations of live specialist AI tools may help guide governance, implementation, and validation. Uptake alone is not evidence of effectiveness, but it can help shape priorities for subsequent studies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors are co-founders, developers, and operators of the ChatIBD platform described in this study. They were involved in platform design, operational oversight, analysis of aggregated service metrics, and manuscript preparation. No external commercial sponsor had any role in the work.
Funding Statement
No funding was received for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This work was conducted as a descriptive evaluation of a live digital service using aggregated, de-identified operational metrics generated during routine operation. No individual-level data were accessed or analysed. Under Health Research Authority guidance, the work was treated as service evaluation rather than research. The platform operates in compliance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
