ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Performance Assessment of ChatGPT versus Bard in Detecting Alzheimer's Dementia.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating Generative AI in Mental Health: Systematic Review of Capabilities and Limitations.JMIR mental health · 2025Pooled it
- DiAbot: A Conversational AI System Coupling Large Language Models with an Interpretable Decision Tree for CDR-Style Dementia Screening.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advancing Alzheimer Disease Prediction With Large Language Model-Based Linguistic Feature Analysis: Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Review
- Using generative AI for the objective assessment of language in healthcare.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prompt Engineering in Clinical Practice: Tutorial for Clinicians.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Multimodal Performance of GPT-4 in Complex Ophthalmology Cases.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) find increasing applications in many fields. Here, three LLM chatbots (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Bard) are assessed in their current form, as publicly available, for their ability to recognize Alzheimer's dementia (AD) and Cognitively Normal (CN) individuals using textual input derived from spontaneous speech recordings. A zero-shot learning approach is used at two levels of independent queries, with the second query (chain-of-thought prompting) eliciting more detailed information than the first. Each LLM chatbot's performance is evaluated on the prediction generated in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1 score. LLM chatbots generated a three-class outcome ("AD", "CN", or "Unsure"). When positively identifying AD, Bard produced the highest true-positives (89% recall) and highest F1 score (71%), but tended to misidentify CN as AD, with high confidence (low "Unsure" rates); for positively identifying CN, GPT-4 resulted in the highest true-negatives at 56% and highest F1 score (62%), adopting a diplomatic stance (moderate "Unsure" rates). Overall, the three LLM chatbots can identify AD vs. CN, surpassing chance-levels, but do not currently satisfy the requirements for clinical application.
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.