ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2024
Diagnosis in Bytes: Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Google and ChatGPT 3.5 as an Educational Support Tool.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Large Language Models for Diagnostic Accuracy and Health Information Quality in Oral Mucosal Diseases.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Public Health: Bridging Today's Trends with Tomorrow's Possibilities.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdopting advanced digital technologies as diagnostic support tools in healthcare is an unquestionable trend accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, their accuracy in suggesting diagnoses remains controversial and needs to be explored. We aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of two free accessible internet search tools: Google and ChatGPT 3.5.
methodsTo assess the effectiveness of both medical platforms, we conducted evaluations using a sample of 60 clinical cases related to urological pathologies. We organized the urological cases into two distinct categories for our analysis: (i) prevalent conditions, which were compiled using the most common symptoms, as outlined by EAU and UpToDate guidelines, and (ii) unusual disorders, identified through case reports published in the 'Urology Case Reports' journal from 2022 to 2023. The outcomes were meticulously classified into three categories to determine the accuracy of each platform: "correct diagnosis", "likely differential diagnosis", and "incorrect diagnosis". A group of experts evaluated the responses blindly and randomly.
resultsFor commonly encountered urological conditions, Google's accuracy was 53.3%, with an additional 23.3% of its results falling within a plausible range of differential diagnoses, and the remaining outcomes were incorrect. ChatGPT 3.5 outperformed Google with an accuracy of 86.6%, provided a likely differential diagnosis in 13.3% of cases, and made no unsuitable diagnosis. In evaluating unusual disorders, Google failed to deliver any correct diagnoses but proposed a likely differential diagnosis in 20% of cases. ChatGPT 3.5 identified the proper diagnosis in 16.6% of rare cases and offered a reasonable differential diagnosis in half of the cases.
conclusionChatGPT 3.5 demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy than Google in both contexts. The platform showed satisfactory accuracy when diagnosing common cases, yet its performance in identifying rare conditions remains limited.
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.