ArticleCureus2024
Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Platforms With Regard to Medical Microbiology Knowledge: An Analysis of ChatGPT and Gemini.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Accuracy of Medical Information Generated by ChatGPT and Gemini and Its Alignment With International Clinical Guidelines From the Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Comparative Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Performance of AI Chatbots in Preliminary Diagnosis of Maxillofacial Pathologies.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Cognitive Domain Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: A Comparative Study Between ChatGPT and Gemini's Understanding of Anatomy Education.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy of large language models in answering bone cancer-related questions.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The performance of two artificial intelligence (AI) platforms, ChatGPT 3.5 (OpenAI, California, United States) and Gemini (Google AI, California, United States) was assessed by answering 200 questions of microbiology drawn from validated sources. The questions were selected from topics such as General Microbiology, Immunology, and Microbiology Applied to Infectious Diseases. The study was conducted from December 2023 to March 2024, and the responses of the different AI platforms were compared with an answer key. Statistical analysis was performed to assess accuracy. ChatGPT 3.5 and Gemini had comparable accuracy with correct response scores of 71% and 70.5%, respectively. Their performance varied across different sections. Gemini performed better in General Microbiology and Immunology, and ChatGPT 3.5 had a better score in the Applied Microbiology section. The study's findings highlight that AI platforms such as ChatGPT and Gemini can be utilized in microbiology and medical education. The evolution and continuous updating of AI platforms are required to improve their performance.
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.