Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39228001›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2024

The performance of OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini in virology multiple-choice questions: a comparative analysis of English and Arabic responses.

Malik Sallam, Kholoud Al-Mahzoum, Rawan Ahmad Almutawaa, Jasmen Ahmad Alhashash, Retaj Abdullah Dashti, Danah Raed AlSafy, Reem Abdullah Almutairi, Muna Barakat

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Malik SallamDepartment of Pathology, Microbiology and Forensic Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan. malik.sallam@ju.edu.jo.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0165-9670
Kholoud Al-MahzoumSchool of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-0143-7645
Rawan Ahmad AlmutawaaSchool of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-6551-7480
Jasmen Ahmad AlhashashSchool of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-2967-6192
Retaj Abdullah DashtiSchool of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-4181-7558
Danah Raed AlSafySchool of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-1598-409X
Reem Abdullah AlmutairiSchool of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-0221-3987
Muna BarakatDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Applied Science Private University, Amman, 11931, Jordan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7966-1172

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare education is inevitable. Understanding the proficiency of generative AI in different languages to answer complex questions is crucial for educational purposes. The study objective was to compare the performance ChatGPT-4 and Gemini in answering Virology multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in English and Arabic, while assessing the quality of the generated content. Both AI models' responses to 40 Virology MCQs were assessed for correctness and quality based on the CLEAR tool designed for evaluation of AI-generated content. The MCQs were classified into lower and higher cognitive categories based on the revised Bloom's taxonomy. The study design considered the METRICS checklist for the design and reporting of generative AI-based studies in healthcare.

resultsChatGPT-4 and Gemini performed better in English compared to Arabic, with ChatGPT-4 consistently surpassing Gemini in correctness and CLEAR scores. ChatGPT-4 led Gemini with 80% vs. 62.5% correctness in English compared to 65% vs. 55% in Arabic. For both AI models, superior performance in lower cognitive domains was reported. Both ChatGPT-4 and Gemini exhibited potential in educational applications; nevertheless, their performance varied across languages highlighting the importance of continued development to ensure the effective AI integration in healthcare education globally.

Indexed as

LanguageVirologyArtificial IntelligenceHumans

Identifiers

PMID39228001
PMCPMC11373487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.