■基于人工智能(AI)的文本生成器,例如ChatGPT(OpenAI)和GoogleBard(现在的GoogleGemini),在预测单词和回答各种问题方面表现出熟练的能力。然而,他们在回答临床查询方面的表现尚未得到很好的评估.此比较分析旨在评估ChatGPT和GoogleGemini在解决临床问题方面的能力。
■进行了与ChatGPT和GoogleGemini的单独互动,以获得对临床问题的回答,PosposeinaPICOT(patient,干预,比较,结果,时间)格式。为了确定AI聊天机器人提供的信息的准确性,对全文进行了彻底的审查。
■尽管ChatGPT在生成书目信息时表现出相对的准确性,它在临床内容上显示出一些不一致之处。相反,GoogleGemini生成的引文和摘要完全是捏造的。
■尽管生成的响应可能看起来可信,这两种基于人工智能的工具都表现出事实不准确,引起人们对其作为潜在临床信息来源的可靠性的严重担忧。[J护士教育。2024;63(8):556-559。].
UNASSIGNED: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based text generators, such as ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Google Bard (now Google Gemini), have demonstrated proficiency in predicting words and providing responses to various questions. However, their performance in answering clinical queries has not been well assessed. This comparative analysis aimed to assess the capabilities of ChatGPT and Google Gemini in addressing clinical questions.
UNASSIGNED: Separate interactions with ChatGPT and Google Gemini were conducted to obtain responses to the clinical question, posed in a PICOT (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome, time) format. To ascertain the accuracy of the information provided by the AI chat bots, a thorough examination of full-text articles was conducted.
UNASSIGNED: Although ChatGPT exhibited relative accuracy in generating bibliographic information, it displayed some inconsistencies in clinical content. Conversely, Google Gemini generated citations and summaries that were entirely fabricated.
UNASSIGNED: Despite generating responses that may appear credible, both AI-based tools exhibited factual inaccuracies, raising substantial concerns about their reliability as potential sources of clinical information. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(8):556-559.].