ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Evaluation of Information Quality on Colon Cancer for Patients: A Study of ChatGPT-4 and Google.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large Language Models in Colorectal Cancer Care and Clinical Decision Support: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the Reliability and Quality of Sarcoidosis-Related Information Provided by AI Chatbots.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Enhancing Patient Comprehension of Glomerular Disease Treatments Using ChatGPT.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction This study aimed to evaluate and compare the quality and reliability of information provided by two widely used digital platforms, ChatGPT-4 and Google, on frequently asked questions about colon cancer. With the growing popularity of these platforms, individuals increasingly turn to them for accessible health information, yet questions remain regarding the accuracy and reliability of such content. Given that colon cancer is a prevalent and serious condition, trustworthy information is essential to support patient education, facilitate informed decision-making, and potentially improve patient outcomes. Therefore, the objective was to determine which platform offers more reliable and accurate medical information on colon cancer, using established evaluation criteria to assess the quality of information. Methods Twenty frequently asked questions about colon cancer were selected based on search popularity and relevance to patients and then searched using ChatGPT-4 and Google. Responses were evaluated using tools such as DISCERN (reliability), Global Quality Score (GQS), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria (accuracy), SAM (suitability), Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test, HITS (user experience), and VPI (visibility). Statistical analyses determined significant differences between the platforms (p < 0.05). ChatGPT-4 scored significantly higher than Google on DISCERN, GQS, and JAMA, indicating greater reliability, accuracy, and comprehensibility (p < 0.001). Both platforms showed similar readability scores, but ChatGPT-4 rated higher for patient suitability (SAM, p < 0.01) and user-friendliness (HITS, p < 0.01). Although Google exhibited higher visibility (VPI), the limited HONcode certification raised concerns about the reliability of its results. Results ChatGPT-4 scored significantly higher than Google on DISCERN, GQS, and JAMA criteria, demonstrating superior reliability, accuracy, and comprehensibility (p < 0.001). While both platforms had comparable readability scores on the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test, ChatGPT-4 was rated as more suitable for patient education according to SAM criteria (p < 0.01). Furthermore, ChatGPT-4 was found to be more user-friendly and offered more structured information based on the HITS scale (p < 0.01). Although Google showed higher visibility according to the VPI, the limited presence of HONcode-certified results raised concerns about the reliability of its information. Conclusion ChatGPT-4 proved to be a more reliable and higher-quality source of medical information compared to Google, particularly for patient queries about colon cancer. AI-based platforms such as ChatGPT-4 hold promise for enhancing patient education and providing accurate medical information, although further research is needed to confirm these findings across different medical topics and larger populations.
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.