BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have recently gained use in medical practice by health care practitioners. Interestingly, the output of these AI chatbots was found to have varying degrees of hallucination in content and references. Such hallucinations generate doubts about their output and their implementation.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to propose a reference hallucination score (RHS) to evaluate the authenticity of AI chatbots\' citations.
METHODS: Six AI chatbots were challenged with the same 10 medical prompts, requesting 10 references per prompt. The RHS is composed of 6 bibliographic items and the reference\'s relevance to prompts\' keywords. RHS was calculated for each reference, prompt, and type of prompt (basic vs complex). The average RHS was calculated for each AI chatbot and compared across the different types of prompts and AI chatbots.
RESULTS: Bard failed to generate any references. ChatGPT 3.5 and Bing generated the highest RHS (score=11), while Elicit and SciSpace generated the lowest RHS (score=1), and Perplexity generated a middle RHS (score=7). The highest degree of hallucination was observed for reference relevancy to the prompt keywords (308/500, 61.6%), while the lowest was for reference titles (169/500, 33.8%). ChatGPT and Bing had comparable RHS (β coefficient=-0.069; P=.32), while Perplexity had significantly lower RHS than ChatGPT (β coefficient=-0.345; P<.001). AI chatbots generally had significantly higher RHS when prompted with scenarios or complex format prompts (β coefficient=0.486; P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The variation in RHS underscores the necessity for a robust reference evaluation tool to improve the authenticity of AI chatbots. Further, the variations highlight the importance of verifying their output and citations. Elicit and SciSpace had negligible hallucination, while ChatGPT and Bing had critical hallucination levels. The proposed AI chatbots\' RHS could contribute to ongoing efforts to enhance AI\'s general reliability in medical research.

This study explores disparities and opportunities in healthcare information provided by AI chatbots. We focused on recommendations for adjuvant therapy in endometrial cancer, analyzing responses across four regions (Indonesia, Nigeria, Taiwan, USA) and three platforms (Bard, Bing, ChatGPT-3.5). Utilizing previously published cases, we asked identical questions to chatbots from each location within a 24-h window. Responses were evaluated in a double-blinded manner on relevance, clarity, depth, focus, and coherence by ten experts in endometrial cancer. Our analysis revealed significant variations across different countries/regions (p < 0.001). Interestingly, Bing\'s responses in Nigeria consistently outperformed others (p < 0.05), excelling in all evaluation criteria (p < 0.001). Bard also performed better in Nigeria compared to other regions (p < 0.05), consistently surpassing them across all categories (p < 0.001, with relevance reaching p < 0.01). Notably, Bard\'s overall scores were significantly higher than those of ChatGPT-3.5 and Bing in all locations (p < 0.001). These findings highlight disparities and opportunities in the quality of AI-powered healthcare information based on user location and platform. This emphasizes the necessity for more research and development to guarantee equal access to trustworthy medical information through AI technologies.

BACKGROUND: The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly impacted various sectors, with health care witnessing some of its most groundbreaking contributions. Contemporary models, such as ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Bing, have showcased capabilities beyond just generating text, aiding in complex tasks like literature searches and refining web-based queries.
OBJECTIVE: This study explores a compelling query: can AI author an academic paper independently? Our assessment focuses on four core dimensions: relevance (to ensure that AI\'s response directly addresses the prompt), accuracy (to ascertain that AI\'s information is both factually correct and current), clarity (to examine AI\'s ability to present coherent and logical ideas), and tone and style (to evaluate whether AI can align with the formality expected in academic writings). Additionally, we will consider the ethical implications and practicality of integrating AI into academic writing.
METHODS: To assess the capabilities of ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Bing in the context of academic paper assistance in general practice, we used a systematic approach. ChatGPT-4, an advanced AI language model by Open AI, excels in generating human-like text and adapting responses based on user interactions, though it has a knowledge cut-off in September 2021. Microsoft Bing\'s AI chatbot facilitates user navigation on the Bing search engine, offering tailored search.
RESULTS: In terms of relevance, ChatGPT-4 delved deeply into AI\'s health care role, citing academic sources and discussing diverse applications and concerns, while Microsoft Bing provided a concise, less detailed overview. In terms of accuracy, ChatGPT-4 correctly cited 72% (23/32) of its peer-reviewed articles but included some nonexistent references. Microsoft Bing\'s accuracy stood at 46% (6/13), supplemented by relevant non-peer-reviewed articles. In terms of clarity, both models conveyed clear, coherent text. ChatGPT-4 was particularly adept at detailing technical concepts, while Microsoft Bing was more general. In terms of tone, both models maintained an academic tone, but ChatGPT-4 exhibited superior depth and breadth in content delivery.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparing ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Bing for academic assistance revealed strengths and limitations. ChatGPT-4 excels in depth and relevance but falters in citation accuracy. Microsoft Bing is concise but lacks robust detail. Though both models have potential, neither can independently handle comprehensive academic tasks. As AI evolves, combining ChatGPT-4\'s depth with Microsoft Bing\'s up-to-date referencing could optimize academic support. Researchers should critically assess AI outputs to maintain academic credibility.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate three chatbots - OpenAI ChatGPT, Microsoft Bing Chat (currently Copilot), and Google Bard (currently Gemini) - in terms of their responses to a defined set of audiological questions.
METHODS: Each chatbot was presented with the same 10 questions. The authors rated the responses on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Additional features, such as the number of inaccuracies or errors and the provision of references, were also examined.
RESULTS: Most responses given by all three chatbots were rated as satisfactory or better. However, all chatbots generated at least a few errors or inaccuracies. ChatGPT achieved the highest overall score, while Bard was the worst. Bard was also the only chatbot unable to provide a response to one of the questions. ChatGPT was the only chatbot that did not provide information about its sources.
CONCLUSIONS: Chatbots are an intriguing tool that can be used to access basic information in a specialized area like audiology. Nevertheless, one needs to be careful, as correct information is not infrequently mixed in with errors that are hard to pick up unless the user is well versed in the field.

UNASSIGNED: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform preoperative planning for breast reconstruction by enhancing the efficiency, accuracy, and reliability of radiology reporting through automatic interpretation and perforator identification. Large language models (LLMs) have recently advanced significantly in medicine. This study aimed to evaluate the proficiency of contemporary LLMs in interpreting computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans for deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap preoperative planning.
UNASSIGNED: Four prominent LLMs, ChatGPT-4, BARD, Perplexity, and BingAI, answered six questions on CTA scan reporting. A panel of expert plastic surgeons with extensive experience in breast reconstruction assessed the responses using a Likert scale. In contrast, the responses\' readability was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease score, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade level, and the Coleman-Liau Index. The DISCERN score was utilized to determine the responses\' suitability. Statistical significance was identified through a t-test, and P-values < 0.05 were considered significant.
UNASSIGNED: BingAI provided the most accurate and useful responses to prompts, followed by Perplexity, ChatGPT, and then BARD. BingAI had the greatest Flesh Reading Ease (34.7±5.5) and DISCERN (60.5±3.9) scores. Perplexity had higher Flesch-Kincaid Grade level (20.5±2.7) and Coleman-Liau Index (17.8±1.6) scores than other LLMs.
UNASSIGNED: LLMs exhibit limitations in their capabilities of reporting CTA for preoperative planning of breast reconstruction, yet the rapid advancements in technology hint at a promising future. AI stands poised to enhance the education of CTA reporting and aid preoperative planning. In the future, AI technology could provide automatic CTA interpretation, enhancing the efficiency, accuracy, and reliability of CTA reports.

Introduction With the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots to serve as the primary source of glaucoma information to patients, it is essential to characterize the information that chatbots provide such that providers can tailor discussions, anticipate patient concerns, and identify misleading information. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate glaucoma information from AI chatbots, including ChatGPT-4, Bard, and Bing, by analyzing response accuracy, comprehensiveness, readability, word count, and character count in comparison to each other and glaucoma-related American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) patient materials. Methods Section headers from AAO glaucoma-related patient education brochures were adapted into question form and asked five times to each AI chatbot (ChatGPT-4, Bard, and Bing). Two sets of responses from each chatbot were used to evaluate the accuracy of AI chatbot responses and AAO brochure information, and the comprehensiveness of AI chatbot responses compared to the AAO brochure information, scored 1-5 by three independent glaucoma-trained ophthalmologists. Readability (assessed with Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), corresponding to the United States school grade levels), word count, and character count were determined for all chatbot responses and AAO brochure sections. Results Accuracy scores for AAO, ChatGPT, Bing, and Bard were 4.84, 4.26, 4.53, and 3.53, respectively. On direct comparison, AAO was more accurate than ChatGPT (p=0.002), and Bard was the least accurate (Bard versus AAO, p<0.001; Bard versus ChatGPT, p<0.002; Bard versus Bing, p=0.001). ChatGPT had the most comprehensive responses (ChatGPT versus Bing, p<0.001; ChatGPT versus Bard p=0.008), with comprehensiveness scores for ChatGPT, Bing, and Bard at 3.32, 2.16, and 2.79, respectively. AAO information and Bard responses were at the most accessible readability levels (AAO versus ChatGPT, AAO versus Bing, Bard versus ChatGPT, Bard versus Bing, all p<0.0001), with readability levels for AAO, ChatGPT, Bing, and Bard at 8.11, 13.01, 11.73, and 7.90, respectively. Bing responses had the lowest word and character count. Conclusion AI chatbot responses varied in accuracy, comprehensiveness, and readability. With accuracy scores and comprehensiveness below that of AAO brochures and elevated readability levels, AI chatbots require improvements to be a more useful supplementary source of glaucoma information for patients. Physicians must be aware of these limitations such that patients are asked about existing knowledge and questions and are then provided with clarifying and comprehensive information.

The aim of the study is to evaluate and compare the quality and readability of responses generated by five different artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots-ChatGPT, Bard, Bing, Ernie, and Copilot-to the top searched queries of erectile dysfunction (ED). Google Trends was used to identify ED-related relevant phrases. Each AI chatbot received a specific sequence of 25 frequently searched terms as input. Responses were evaluated using DISCERN, Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Reading Ease (FKRE) metrics. The top three most frequently searched phrases were \"erectile dysfunction cause\", \"how to erectile dysfunction,\" and \"erectile dysfunction treatment.\" Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Ghana exhibited the highest level of interest in ED. None of the AI chatbots achieved the necessary degree of readability. However, Bard exhibited significantly higher FKRE and FKGL ratings (p = 0.001), and Copilot achieved better EQIP and DISCERN ratings than the other chatbots (p = 0.001). Bard exhibited the simplest linguistic framework and posed the least challenge in terms of readability and comprehension, and Copilot\'s text quality on ED was superior to the other chatbots. As new chatbots are introduced, their understandability and text quality increase, providing better guidance to patients.