ArticleJMIR formative research2024
Comparing the Accuracy of Two Generated Large Language Models in Identifying Health-Related Rumors or Misconceptions and the Applicability in Health Science Popularization: Proof-of-Concept Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of Large Language Models in the Cognitive Analysis of Misinformation: Evaluation Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- A Comparative Analysis of GPT-4o and ERNIE Bot in a Chinese Radiation Oncology Exam.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Detecting Sociodemographic Biases in the Content and Quality of Large Language Model-Generated Nursing Care: Cross-Sectional Simulation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Performance of DeepSeek-R1 and DeepSeek-V3 Versus OpenAI Models in the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination: Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Assessing the accuracy and explainability of using ChatGPT to evaluate the quality of health news.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Quality evaluation of AI-generated diabetes-related health education texts from different generative models.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Health-related rumors and misconceptions are spreading at an alarming rate, fueled by the rapid development of the internet and the exponential growth of social media platforms. This phenomenon has become a pressing global concern, as the dissemination of false information can have severe consequences, including widespread panic, social instability, and even public health crises. Objective: The aim of the study is to compare the accuracy of rumor identification and the effectiveness of health science popularization between 2 generated large language models in Chinese (GPT-4 by OpenAI and Enhanced Representation through Knowledge Integration Bot [ERNIE Bot] 4.0 by Baidu). Methods: In total, 20 health rumors and misconceptions, along with 10 health truths, were randomly inputted into GPT-4 and ERNIE Bot 4.0. We prompted them to determine whether the statements were rumors or misconceptions and provide explanations for their judgment. Further, we asked them to generate a health science popularization essay. We evaluated the outcomes in terms of accuracy, effectiveness, readability, and applicability. Accuracy was assessed by the rate of correctly identifying health-related rumors, misconceptions, and truths. Effectiveness was determined by the accuracy of the generated explanation, which was assessed collaboratively by 2 research team members with a PhD in nursing. Readability was calculated by the readability formula of Chinese health education materials. Applicability was evaluated by the Chinese Suitability Assessment of Materials. Results: GPT-4 and ERNIE Bot 4.0 correctly identified all health rumors and misconceptions (100% accuracy rate). For truths, the accuracy rate was 70% (7/10) and 100% (10/10), respectively. Both mostly provided widely recognized viewpoints without obvious errors. The average readability score for the health essays was 2.92 (SD 0.85) for GPT-4 and 3.02 (SD 0.84) for ERNIE Bot 4.0 (P=.65). For applicability, except for the content and cultural appropriateness category, significant differences were observed in the total score and scores in other dimensions between them (P<.05). Conclusions: ERNIE Bot 4.0 demonstrated similar accuracy to GPT-4 in identifying Chinese rumors. Both provided widely accepted views, despite some inaccuracies. These insights enhance understanding and correct misunderstandings. For health essays, educators can learn from readable language styles of GLLMs. Finally, ERNIE Bot 4.0 aligns with Chinese expression habits, making it a good choice for a better Chinese reading experience.
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.