Artificial intelligence and allergic rhinitis: does ChatGPT increase or impair the knowledge?

Author:

Høj Simon123ORCID,Thomsen Simon F45,Meteran Hanieh6,Sigsgaard Torben3,Meteran Howraman378ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Hospital , Herlev 2730 , Denmark

2. Copenhagen University Hospital-Bispebjerg Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Wound Healing Centre, , Copenhagen 2400, Denmark

3. Aarhus University Department of Public Health, Environment, Occupation, and Health, , Aarhus 8000 , Denmark

4. Copenhagen University Hospital-Bispebjerg Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Wound Healing Centre, , Copenhagen 2400 , Denmark

5. University of Copenhagen Department of Biomedical Sciences, , Copenhagen 2200 , Denmark

6. Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Endocrinology, , Hvidovre 2650 , Denmark

7. Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre Department of Internal Medicine, Respiratory Medicine Section, , Hvidovre 2650 , Denmark

8. Zealand University Hospital Roskilde-Næstved Department of Respiratory Medicine, , Næstved 4700 , Denmark

Abstract

Abstract Background Optimal management of allergic rhinitis requires patient education with easy access to accurate information. However, previous online platforms have provided misleading information. The demand for online medical information continues to grow, especially with the introduction of advanced chatbots like ChatGPT. Methods This study aimed to evaluate the quality of information provided by ChatGPT regarding allergic rhinitis. A Likert scale was used to assess the accuracy of responses, ranging from 1 to 5. Four authors independently rated the responses from a healthcare professional’s perspective. Results A total of 20 questions covering various aspects of allergic rhinitis were asked. Among the answers, eight received a score of 5 (no inaccuracies), five received a score of 4 (minor non-harmful inaccuracies), six received a score of 3 (potentially misinterpretable inaccuracies) and one answer had a score of 2 (minor potentially harmful inaccuracies). Conclusions The variability in accuracy scores highlights the need for caution when relying solely on chatbots like ChatGPT for medical advice. Patients should consult qualified healthcare professionals and use online sources as a supplement. While ChatGPT has advantages in medical information delivery, its use should be approached with caution. ChatGPT can be useful for patient education but cannot replace healthcare professionals.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Medicine

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

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