ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023
ChatGPT vs Google for Queries Related to Dementia and Other Cognitive Decline: Comparison of Results.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Large Language Models for Chatbot Health Advice Studies: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in psychiatry and mental health care: a systematic review.Acta neuropsychiatrica · 2024Pooled it
- Applications and Concerns of ChatGPT and Other Conversational Large Language Models in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Performance of ChatGPT Across Different Versions in Medical Licensing Examinations Worldwide: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- A Secure User Interface for Preclinical Evaluation of AI in Patient Portal Message Management: Tutorial.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Article
- Utility of Large Language Models for Congenital Microtia Reconstruction Education: Comparison of the Performance of Claude, GPT, and Gemini.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- AD-GPT: large language models in Alzheimer's disease.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Generative AI vs web search for patient education: a comparative evaluation of OSA information quality.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Patient and clinician engagement with generative artificial intelligence (GenAI): A scoping review of implications for patient-centered communication.Patient education and counseling · 2026Article
- A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Large language models for bioinformatics.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026Review
- Textbook-level medical knowledge in large language models: comparative evaluation using Japanese National Medical Examination.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Prevalence and predictors of artificial intelligence chatbots use for caregiving: Evidence from the Understanding America Study.PloS one · 2026Article
- The application and challenges of ChatGPT in laboratory medicine.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- AI chatbots as 'pocket doctors': intimate health support for young women in Lebanon.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Reducing Hallucinations and Trade-Offs in Responses in Generative AI Chatbots for Cancer Information: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Comparing human versus artificial intelligence for health literacy among patients with neurological disorders (HANDs study).Journal of neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople living with dementia or other cognitive decline and their caregivers (PLWD) increasingly rely on the web to find information about their condition and available resources and services. The recent advancements in large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, provide a new alternative to the more traditional web search engines, such as Google.
objectiveThis study compared the quality of the results of ChatGPT and Google for a collection of PLWD-related queries.
methodsA set of 30 informational and 30 service delivery (transactional) PLWD-related queries were selected and submitted to both Google and ChatGPT. Three domain experts assessed the results for their currency of information, reliability of the source, objectivity, relevance to the query, and similarity of their response. The readability of the results was also analyzed. Interrater reliability coefficients were calculated for all outcomes.
resultsGoogle had superior currency and higher reliability. ChatGPT results were evaluated as more objective. ChatGPT had a significantly higher response relevance, while Google often drew upon sources that were referral services for dementia care or service providers themselves. The readability was low for both platforms, especially for ChatGPT (mean grade level 12.17, SD 1.94) compared to Google (mean grade level 9.86, SD 3.47). The similarity between the content of ChatGPT and Google responses was rated as high for 13 (21.7%) responses, medium for 16 (26.7%) responses, and low for 31 (51.6%) responses.
conclusionsBoth Google and ChatGPT have strengths and weaknesses. ChatGPT rarely includes the source of a result. Google more often provides a date for and a known reliable source of the response compared to ChatGPT, whereas ChatGPT supplies more relevant responses to queries. The results of ChatGPT may be out of date and often do not specify a validity time stamp. Google sometimes returns results based on commercial entities. The readability scores for both indicate that responses are often not appropriate for persons with low health literacy skills. In the future, the addition of both the source and the date of health-related information and availability in other languages may increase the value of these platforms for both nonmedical and medical professionals.
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.