Back

Fact Check: Assessing the Response of ChatGPT to Alzheimer's Disease Statements with Varying Degrees of Misinformation

Huang, S. S.; Song, Q.; Beiting, K. J.; Duggan, M. C.; Hines, K.; Murff, H.; Leung, V.; Powers, J.; Harvey, T. S.; Malin, B.; Yin, Z.

2023-09-07 geriatric medicine
10.1101/2023.09.04.23294917 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThere are many myths regarding Alzheimers disease (AD) that have been circulated on the Internet, each exhibiting varying degrees of accuracy, inaccuracy, and misinformation. Large language models such as ChatGPT, may be a useful tool to help assess these myths for veracity and inaccuracy. However, they can induce misinformation as well. The objective of this study is to assess ChatGPTs ability to identify and address AD myths with reliable information. MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of clinicians evaluation of ChatGPT (GPT 4.0)s responses to 20 selected AD myths. We prompted ChatGPT to express its opinion on each myth and then requested it to rephrase its explanation using a simplified language that could be more readily understood by individuals with a middle school education. We implemented a survey using Redcap to determine the degree to which clinicians agreed with the accuracy of each ChatGPTs explanation and the degree to which the simplified rewriting was readable and retained the message of the original. We also collected their explanation on any disagreement with ChatGPTs responses. We used five Likert-type scale with a score ranging from -2 to 2 to quantify clinicians agreement in each aspect of the evaluation. ResultsThe clinicians (n=11) were generally satisfied with ChatGPTs explanations, with a mean (SD) score of 1.0({+/-}0.3) across the 20 myths. While ChatGPT correctly identified that all the 20 myths were inaccurate, some clinicians disagreed with its explanations on 7 of the myths. Overall, 9 of the 11 professionals either agreed or strongly agreed that ChatGPT has the potential to provide meaningful explanations of certain myths. ConclusionsThe majority of surveyed healthcare professionals acknowledged the potential value of ChatGPT in mitigating AD misinformation. However, the need for more refined and detailed explanations of the diseases mechanisms and treatments was highlighted. Impact StatementThere are many statements regarding Alzheimers disease (AD) diagnosis, management, and treatment circulating on the Internet, each exhibiting varying degrees of accuracy, inaccuracy, and misinformation. Large language models are a popular topic currently, and many patients and caregivers may turn to LLMs such as ChatGPT to learn more about the disease. This study aims to assess ChatGPTs ability to identify and address AD myths with reliable information. We certify that this work is novel. Key Points- Geriatricians acknowledged the potential value of ChatGPT in mitigating misinformation in Alzheimers Disease - There remain nuanced cases where ChatGPT explanations are not as refined or appropriate. - Why does this matter? Large language models such as ChatGPT are very popular nowadays and patients and caregivers often may use them to learn about their disease. The paper seeks to determine whether ChatGPT does an appropriate job in moderating understanding of Alzheimers Disease myths.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Alzheimer's & Dementia
163 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
18.1%
2
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
3
BMC Geriatrics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.5%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.1%
5
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
48 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.4%
7
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
8
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
50 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.0%
9
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.0%
10
GeroScience
109 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.4%
11
DIGITAL HEALTH
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.3%
12
npj Aging
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
13
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
14
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
15
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
57 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
16
Age and Ageing
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
17
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
18
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
19
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
20
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 75%
0.8%
22
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%