Head‐to‐Head Comparison of ChatGPT Versus Google Search for Medical Knowledge Acquisition

Author:

Ayoub Noel F.1ORCID,Lee Yu‐Jin1,Grimm David1,Divi Vasu1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Head & Neck Surgery Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford California USA

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveChat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) is the newest iteration of OpenAI's generative artificial intelligence (AI) with the potential to influence many facets of life, including health care. This study sought to assess ChatGPT's capabilities as a source of medical knowledge, using Google Search as a comparison.Study DesignCross‐sectional analysis.SettingOnline using ChatGPT, Google Seach, and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG).MethodsCPG Plain Language Summaries for 6 conditions were obtained. Questions relevant to specific conditions were developed and input into ChatGPT and Google Search. All questions were written from the patient perspective and sought (1) general medical knowledge or (2) medical recommendations, with varying levels of acuity (urgent or emergent vs routine clinical scenarios). Two blinded reviewers scored all passages and compared results from ChatGPT and Google Search, using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT‐P) as the primary outcome. Additional customized questions were developed that assessed the medical content of the passages.ResultsThe overall average PEMAT‐P score for medical advice was 68.2% (standard deviation [SD]: 4.4) for ChatGPT and 89.4% (SD: 5.9) for Google Search (p < .001). There was a statistically significant difference in the PEMAT‐P score by source (p < .001) but not by urgency of the clinical situation (p = .613). ChatGPT scored significantly higher than Google Search (87% vs 78%, p = .012) for patient education questions.ConclusionChatGPT fared better than Google Search when offering general medical knowledge, but it scored worse when providing medical recommendations. Health care providers should strive to understand the potential benefits and ramifications of generative AI to guide patients appropriately.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Otorhinolaryngology,Surgery

Reference21 articles.

1. Stokel‐WalkerC Van NoordenR. The promise and peril of generative AI.Nature. February 9 2023. Accessed March 12 2023.https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00340-6.pdf

2. SchulmanJ ZophB KimC et al. ChatGPT: optimizing language models. November 2022. Accessed January 2023.https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/

3. RooseK. How ChatGPT kicked off an A.I. arms race.New York Times. February 3 2023. Accessed February 5 2023.https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/03/technology/chatgpt-openai-artificial-intelligence.html

4. Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing?

5. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing;Alkaissi H;Cureus,2023

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3