ArticleCureus2024
A Comparative Analysis of AI Models in Complex Medical Decision-Making Scenarios: Evaluating ChatGPT, Claude AI, Bard, and Perplexity.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of AI-generated exercise awareness messages for older adults aligned with the ICFSR consensus: a comparative study of three LLMs.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2026Article
- From dictation to diagnosis: enhancing radiology reporting with integrated speech recognition in multimodal large language models.European radiology · 2026Article
- ChatGPT's role in the rapidly evolving hematologic cancer landscape.Future science OA · 2025Article
- Review
- Assessing the Clinical Utility of Multimodal Large Language Models in the Diagnosis and Management of Pigmented Choroidal Lesions.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Article
- Chatbot for the Return of Positive Genetic Screening Results for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Prompt Engineering Project.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence to Support Genetic Counseling for Rare Diseases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Quality of Information Provided by Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Surrounding the Reconstructive Surgery for Head and Neck Cancer: A Comparative Analysis Between ChatGPT4 and Claude2.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2025Article
- Review
- Evaluating AI performance in infectious disease education: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT, Google Bard, Perplexity AI, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta AI.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Opportunities and Challenges of Chatbots in Ophthalmology: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Assessing the Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Models in Scoliosis Classification and Suggested Therapeutic Approaches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessing AI efficacy in medical knowledge tests: A study using Taiwan's internal medicine exam questions from 2020 to 2023.Digital healthArticle
- Can Large Language Models Identify When an Upper Extremity Problem Needs Nonurgent Attention? An Assessment of Multiple LLM Chatbots.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study rigorously evaluates the performance of four artificial intelligence (AI) language models - ChatGPT, Claude AI, Google Bard, and Perplexity AI - across four key metrics: accuracy, relevance, clarity, and completeness. We used a strong mix of research methods, getting opinions from 14 scenarios. This helped us make sure our findings were accurate and dependable. The study showed that Claude AI performs better than others because it gives complete responses. Its average score was 3.64 for relevance and 3.43 for completeness compared to other AI tools. ChatGPT always did well, and Google Bard had unclear responses, which varied greatly, making it difficult to understand it, so there was no consistency in Google Bard. These results give important information about what AI language models are doing well or not for medical suggestions. They help us use them better, telling us how to improve future tech changes that use AI. The study shows that AI abilities match complex medical scenarios.
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.