ArticleJournal of sleep research2024
Evaluating the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-based tools in detecting and understanding sleep health misinformation: Comparative analysis using Google Bard and OpenAI ChatGPT-4.
Article in Journal of sleep research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging AI for Analysis of Digital Health Information on Cancer Prevention Among Arab Youth and Adults: Content Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- "Can We Trust Them?" An Expert Evaluation of Large Language Models to Provide Sleep and Jet Lag Recommendations for Athletes.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- A scoping review of natural language processing in addressing medically inaccurate information: Errors, misinformation, and hallucination.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2025Article
- Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2025Article
- The Complex Interaction Between Sleep-Related Information, Misinformation, and Sleep Health: Call for Comprehensive Research on Sleep Infodemiology and Infoveillance.JMIR infodemiology · 2024Article
- Evaluating the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-based tools in detecting and understanding sleep health misinformation: Comparative analysis using Google Bard and OpenAI ChatGPT-4.Journal of sleep research · 2024Article
- ChatGPT as an Information Source for Patients with Migraines: A Qualitative Case Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Toward Clinical Generative AI: Conceptual Framework.JMIR AI · 2024Article
- Revolutionizing Sleep Health: The Emergence and Impact of Personalized Sleep Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Large language models in patient education: a scoping review of applications in medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Health Misinformation Detection: Approaches, Challenges and Opportunities.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingReview
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 evaluates the performance of two major artificial intelligence-based tools (ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard) in debunking sleep-related myths. More in detail, the present research assessed 20 sleep misconceptions using a 5-point Likert scale for falseness and public health significance, comparing responses of artificial intelligence tools with expert opinions. The results indicated that Google Bard correctly identified 19 out of 20 statements as false (95.0% accuracy), not differing from ChatGPT-4 (85.0% accuracy, Fisher's exact test p = 0.615). Google Bard's ratings of the falseness of the sleep misconceptions averaged 4.25 ± 0.70, showing a moderately negative skewness (-0.42) and kurtosis (-0.83), and suggesting a distribution with fewer extreme values compared with ChatGPT-4. In assessing public health significance, Google Bard's mean score was 2.4 ± 0.80, with skewness and kurtosis of 0.36 and -0.07, respectively, indicating a more normal distribution compared with ChatGPT-4. The inter-rater agreement between Google Bard and sleep experts had an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.58 for falseness and 0.69 for public health significance, showing moderate alignment (p = 0.065 and p = 0.014, respectively). Text-mining analysis revealed Google Bard's focus on practical advice, while ChatGPT-4 concentrated on theoretical aspects of sleep. The readability analysis suggested Google Bard's responses were more accessible, aligning with 8th-grade level material, versus ChatGPT-4's 12th-grade level complexity. The study demonstrates the potential of artificial intelligence in public health education, especially in sleep health, and underscores the importance of accurate, reliable artificial intelligence-generated information, calling for further collaboration between artificial intelligence developers, sleep health professionals and educators to enhance the effectiveness of sleep health promotion.
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.