ArticleThe Gerontologist2024
Are Virtual Assistants Trustworthy for Medicare Information: An Examination of Accuracy and Reliability.
Article in The Gerontologist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Short Medicare Proficiency Questionnaire (MPQ): Reliability and Validity.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026Article
- From digital companionship to capability building: reframing conversational artificial intelligence and older adults' psychological wellbeing in active aging.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- The Development and Evaluation of a Retrieval-Augmented Generation Large Language Model Virtual Assistant for Postoperative Instructions.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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesAdvances in artificial intelligence (AI)-based virtual assistants provide a potential opportunity for older adults to use this technology in the context of health information-seeking. Meta-analysis on trust in AI shows that users are influenced by the accuracy and reliability of the AI trustee. We evaluated these dimensions for responses to Medicare queries. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsDuring the summer of 2023, we assessed the accuracy and reliability of Alexa, Google Assistant, Bard, and ChatGPT-4 on Medicare terminology and general content from a large, standardized question set. We compared the accuracy of these AI systems to that of a large representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries who were queried twenty years prior.
resultsAlexa and Google Assistant were found to be highly inaccurate when compared to beneficiaries' mean accuracy of 68.4% on terminology queries and 53.0% on general Medicare content. Bard and ChatGPT-4 answered Medicare terminology queries perfectly and performed much better on general Medicare content queries (Bard = 96.3%, ChatGPT-4 = 92.6%) than the average Medicare beneficiary. About one month to a month-and-a-half later, we found that Bard and Alexa's accuracy stayed the same, whereas ChatGPT-4's performance nominally decreased, and Google Assistant's performance nominally increased. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: LLM-based assistants generate trustworthy information in response to carefully phrased queries about Medicare, in contrast to Alexa and Google Assistant. Further studies will be needed to determine what factors beyond accuracy and reliability influence the adoption and use of such technology for Medicare decision-making.
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.