Microsoft Bing vs Google Bard in Neurology: A Comparative Study of AI-Generated Patient Education Material
Nazir, T.; Mal, M.; Rehman, M. M.; Ahmad, U.; Saeed, R.; Kalia, J. S.
Show abstract
BackgroundPatient education is an essential component of healthcare, and artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as Google Bard and Microsoft Bing have the potential to improve information transmission and enhance patient care. However, it is crucial to evaluate the quality, accuracy, and understandability of the materials generated by these models before applying them in medical practice. This study aimed to assess and compare the quality of patient education materials produced by Google Bard and Microsoft Bing in response to questions related to neurological conditions. MethodsA cross-sectional study design was used to evaluate and compare the ability of Google Bard and Microsoft Bing to generate patient education materials. The study included the top ten prevalent neurological diseases based on WHO prevalence data. Ten board-certified neurologists and four neurology residents evaluated the responses generated by the models on six quality metrics. The scores for each model were compiled and averaged across all measures, and the significance of any observed variations was assessed using an independent t-test. ResultsGoogle Bard performed better than Microsoft Bing in all six-quality metrics, with an overall mean score of 79% and 69%, respectively. Google Bard outperformed Microsoft Bing in all measures for eight questions, while Microsoft Bing performed marginally better in terms of objectivity and clarity for the epilepsy query. ConclusionThis study showed that Google Bard performs better than Microsoft Bing in generating patient education materials for neurological diseases. However, healthcare professionals should take into account both AI models advantages and disadvantages when providing support for health information requirements. Future studies can help determine the underlying causes of these variations and guide cooperative initiatives to create more user-focused AI-generated patient education materials. Finally, researchers should consider the perception of patients regarding AI-generated patient education material and its impact on implementing these solutions in healthcare settings.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 93%
- Development of a customised data management system for a COVID-19-adapted colorectal cancer pathway 92%
- Network Graph Representation of COVID-19 Scientific Publications to Aid Knowledge Discovery 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of a knowledge translation platform for ataxia: Impact on readers and volunteer contributors 93%
- Protocol For Human Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Clinical Consultations 93%
- tbiExtractor: A framework for Extracting Traumatic Brain Injury Common Data Elements from Radiology Reports 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving Patient Engagement in Phase 2 Clinical Trials with a Trial-specific Patient Decision Aid (tPDA): A Development and Usability Study 93%
- Design and implementation of a system for automated monitoring of adherence to evidenced-based clinical guideline recommendations 93%
- Has the pandemic enhanced and sustained digital health-seeking behaviour? A big data interrupted time-series analysis of Google Trends 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.