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

被引:41
|
作者
Ayoub, Noel F. [1 ,2 ]
Lee, Yu-Jin [1 ]
Grimm, David [1 ]
Divi, Vasu [1 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Sch Med, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Div Head & Neck Surg, Stanford, CA USA
[2] Stanford Univ, Sch Med, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Div Head & Neck Surg, 801 Welch Rd, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
关键词
artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; generative artificial intelligence; health literacy; large language models; online search engines; patient education;
D O I
10.1002/ohn.465
中图分类号
R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100213 ;
摘要
ObjectiveChat 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.
引用
收藏
页码:1484 / 1491
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] EconLit and Google Scholar Go Head-to-Head
    Kirkwood, Hal P., Jr.
    Kirkwood, Monica C.
    ONLINE, 2011, 35 (02): : 38 - 41
  • [2] HUMAN VERSUS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON OF PREDICTIVE
    Charu, Vivek
    Liang, Jane
    Mannalithara, Ajitha
    Kwong, Allison
    Kim, W. Ray
    HEPATOLOGY, 2024, 80 : S1028 - S1029
  • [3] PubMed vs. HighWire Press: A head-to-head comparison of two medical literature search engines
    Vanhecke, Thomas E.
    Barnes, Michael A.
    Zimmerman, Janet
    Shoichet, Sandor
    COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 2007, 37 (09) : 1252 - 1258
  • [4] Head-to-head comparison of micafungin versus caspofungin in the treatment of invasive candidiasis
    Michael A. Pfaller
    Current Fungal Infection Reports, 2009, 3 (3) : 127 - 128
  • [5] Symptom checkers versus doctors: A prospective, head-to-head comparison for cough
    Berry, Andrew C.
    Berry, Nicholas A.
    Wang, Bin
    Mulekar, Madhuri S.
    Melvin, Anne
    Battiola, Richard J.
    Bulacan, Frederick K.
    Berry, Bruce B.
    CLINICAL RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2020, 14 (04): : 413 - 415
  • [6] Pressure wire versus microcatheter for FFR measurement: a head-to-head comparison
    Pouillot, C.
    Fournier, S.
    Glasenapp, J.
    Rambaud, G.
    Bougrini, K.
    Fan, R. Vi
    Geyer, C.
    Adjedj, J.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2017, 38 : 384 - 384
  • [7] Pressure wire versus microcatheter for FFR measurement: a head-to-head comparison
    Pouillot, Christophe
    Fournier, Stephane
    Glasenapp, Jens
    Rambaud, Geoffray
    Bougrini, Karim
    Fane, Richard Vi
    Geyer, Christophe
    Adjedj, Julien
    EUROINTERVENTION, 2018, 13 (15) : E1850 - E1856
  • [8] Head-to-Head Comparison of Micafungin Versus Caspofungin in the Treatment of Invasive Candidiasis
    Pappas, P. G.
    Rotstein, C. M.
    Betts, R. F.
    CURRENT FUNGAL INFECTION REPORTS, 2009, 3 (03) : 127 - 128
  • [9] Impella 5.5 Versus Centrimag: A Head-to-Head Comparison of Device Hemocompatibility
    Roka-Moiia, Yana
    Li, Mengtang
    Ivich, Adriana
    Muslmani, Sami
    Kern, Karl B.
    Slepian, Marvin J.
    ASAIO JOURNAL, 2020, 66 (10) : 1142 - 1151
  • [10] HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON OF RISEDRONATE AND ALENDRONATE
    Christiansen, C.
    Phipps, R.
    Burgio, D.
    Sun, L.
    Russell, D.
    Keck, B.
    Kuzmak, B.
    Lindsay, R.
    CALCIFIED TISSUE INTERNATIONAL, 2004, 74 : S36 - S37