ArticleDigital health
Comparing AI and physician medical advice quality and humanistic care on social media platforms.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the level of quality, professionalism, and humanistic care in medical advice given by artificial intelligence (AI) and healthcare experts on social media platforms, with an emphasis on short video content and in-person question-and-answer (Q&A) sessions. Methods: The mDISCERN, GQS, and VIQI scores were used to assess the quality and creator opinion trends of the short videos on AI-assisted diagnosis that were gathered from YouTube, TikTok, and Bilibili. Patient inquiries from Dingxiang Health, a significant Chinese online consultation platform, were selected across medical departments. Simulated answers were produced by Deep Seek R1 and Chat-GPT O3-mini-high, and Bedside Manner Rating were used to evaluate the humanistic and high-quality treatment. Results: Across platforms, 60.8% of videos preferred AI's diagnosis powers above medical professionals (Bilibili: 74.29%, TikTok: 56.67%, YouTube: 53.75%). Bilibili videos, particularly those produced by professionals, scored highest in quality ( Conclusions: Higher-quality medical content is available on Bilibili, and AI shows benefits in terms of humanistic care and diagnostic quality in text-based, simulated consultations. Future research should explore examine how doctors and AI might work together to enhance healthcare delivery, with doctors using digital communication while also exercising professional judgment in real-world clinical settings.
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.