ArticleCureus2024
Understanding the Landscape: The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), ChatGPT, and Google Bard in Gastroenterology.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Large Language Models in Gastroenterology: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Emerging applications of NLP and large language models in gastroenterology and hepatology: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- The Potential Clinical Utility of the Customized Large Language Model in Gastroenterology: A Pilot Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision-Making in Erectile Dysfunction: a Narrative Review.Current urology reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) integration in healthcare, specifically in gastroenterology, has opened new avenues for enhanced patient care and medical decision-making. This study aims to assess the reliability and accuracy of two prominent AI tools, ChatGPT 4.0 and Google Bard, in answering gastroenterology-related queries, thereby evaluating their potential utility in medical settings. Methods The study employed a structured approach where typical gastroenterology questions were input into ChatGPT 4.0 and Google Bard. Independent reviewers evaluated responses using a Likert scale and cross-referenced them with guidelines from authoritative gastroenterology bodies. Statistical analysis, including the Mann-Whitney U test, was conducted to assess the significance of differences in ratings. Results ChatGPT 4.0 demonstrated higher reliability and accuracy in its responses than Google Bard, as indicated by higher mean ratings and statistically significant p-values in hypothesis testing. However, limitations in the data structure, such as the inability to conduct detailed correlation analysis, were noted. Conclusion The study concludes that ChatGPT 4.0 outperforms Google Bard in providing reliable and accurate responses to gastroenterology-related queries. This finding underscores the potential of AI tools like ChatGPT in enhancing healthcare delivery. However, the study also highlights the need for a broader and more diverse assessment of AI capabilities in healthcare to leverage their potential in clinical practice fully.
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.