ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
A comparison of the persuasiveness of human and ChatGPT generated pro-vaccine messages for HPV.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age- and sex-related variation in ChatGPT-4o HPV vaccine recommendation style: A fixed-prompt audit.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Enhancing District Health Center membership among older adults through intergenerational home-based and AI-generated digital interventions: protocol for a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Designing Patient-Friendly Messages: Tutorial on Applying Human-Centered, Self-Determination Theory With AI Considerations.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Large language models as information providers for appropriate antimicrobial use: computational text analysis and expert-rated comparison of ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini.BMJ health & care informatics · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Public health messaging is crucial for promoting beneficial health outcomes, and the latest advancements in artificial intelligence offer new opportunities in this field. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT-4 in generating pro-vaccine messages on different topics for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Methods: In this study ( Results: GPT-generated messages were reported as more persuasive than human-generated messages on some influencing factors (e.g., Discussion: This study provides evidence for the viability of ChatGPT, in generating persuasive pro-vaccine messages to influence people's vaccine attitudes. It is indicated that the feasibility and efficiency of using AI for public health communication.
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.