ArticleCureus2023
ChatGPT Output Regarding Compulsory Vaccination and COVID-19 Vaccine Conspiracy: A Descriptive Study at the Outset of a Paradigm Shift in Online Search for Information.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Applications and Concerns of ChatGPT and Other Conversational Large Language Models in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Exploring the role of ChatGPT in patient care (diagnosis and treatment) and medical research: A systematic review.Health promotion perspectives · 2023Pooled it
- Human versus artificial intelligence: investigating ability of young academics from research and non-research institutions to identify ChatGPT-generated dental research abstracts.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- ChatGPT usage among nursing students in Taiwan: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- ChatGPT in medical education: a cross-sectional analysis of usage, attitudes, perceptions, and practices among Saudi medical students.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Pharm D student's Knowledge, perception, and practice of CHAT-GPT in clinical training: a web-based cross-sectional survey in India.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessing AI-Generated Autism Information for Healthcare Use: A Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Geographic Evaluation of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies Against Health Misinformation: A Scoping Review of Public Health Responses.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Effectiveness, Usability, and Acceptability of ChatGPT With Retrieval-Augmented Generation (SIV-ChatGPT) in Increasing Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Uptake Among Older Adults: Quasi-Experimental Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- Advantages and Limitations of ChatGPT in Healthcare: A Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2025Review
- Identification of dental related ChatGPT generated abstracts by senior and young academicians versus artificial intelligence detectors and a similarity detector.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Investigation of Nursing Students' Online Information Searching Strategies and Attitudes Towards Informatics Ethical Values.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2025Article
- Proficiency, Clarity, and Objectivity of Large Language Models Versus Specialists' Knowledge on COVID-19's Impacts in Pregnancy: Cross-Sectional Pilot Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Integrating artificial intelligence into African health systems and emergency response: Need for an ethical framework and guidelines.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Article
- Comparing new tools of artificial intelligence to the authentic intelligence of our global health students.BioData mining · 2024Article
- Exploring ChatGPT in clinical inquiry: a scoping review of characteristics, applications, challenges, and evaluation.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
- Assessing the Role of the Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) in Alzheimer's Disease Management: Comparative Study of Neurologist- and Artificial Intelligence-Generated Responses.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Ensuring Accuracy and Equity in Vaccination Information From ChatGPT and CDC: Mixed-Methods Cross-Language Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- A framework for human evaluation of large language models in healthcare derived from literature review.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Language discrepancies in the performance of generative artificial intelligence models: an examination of infectious disease queries in English and Arabic.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBeing on the verge of a revolutionary approach to gathering information, ChatGPT (an artificial intelligence (AI)-based language model developed by OpenAI, and capable of producing human-like text) could be the prime motive of a paradigm shift on how humans will acquire information. Despite the concerns related to the use of such a promising tool in relation to the future of the quality of education, this technology will soon be incorporated into web search engines mandating the need to evaluate the output of such a tool. Previous studies showed that dependence on some sources of online information (e.g., social media platforms) was associated with higher rates of vaccination hesitancy. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to describe the output of ChatGPT regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine conspiracy beliefs. and compulsory vaccination.
methodsThe current descriptive study was conducted on January 14, 2023 using the ChatGPT from OpenAI (OpenAI, L.L.C., San Francisco, CA, USA). The output was evaluated by two authors and the degree of agreement regarding the correctness, clarity, conciseness, and bias was evaluated using Cohen's kappa.
resultsThe ChatGPT responses were dismissive of conspiratorial ideas about severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) origins labeling it as non-credible and lacking scientific evidence. Additionally, ChatGPT responses were totally against COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy statements. Regarding compulsory vaccination, ChatGPT responses were neutral citing the following as advantages of this strategy: protecting public health, maintaining herd immunity, reducing the spread of disease, cost-effectiveness, and legal obligation, and on the other hand, it cited the following as disadvantages of compulsory vaccination: ethical and legal concerns, mistrust and resistance, logistical challenges, and limited resources and knowledge.
conclusionsThe current study showed that ChatGPT could be a source of information to challenge COVID-19 vaccine conspiracies. For compulsory vaccination, ChatGPT resonated with the divided opinion in the scientific community toward such a strategy; nevertheless, it detailed the pros and cons of this approach. As it currently stands, the judicious use of ChatGPT could be utilized as a user-friendly source of COVID-19 vaccine information that could challenge conspiracy ideas with clear, concise, and non-biased content. However, ChatGPT content cannot be used as an alternative to the original reliable sources of vaccine information (e.g., the World Health Organization [WHO] and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.