Analyzing the Capacity of ChatGPT and Google to Provide Medical Information: Insights from Umbilical Cord Clamping
Bülbül, R.; Ozdemir Kacer, E.
Show abstract
ObjectiveThe optimal timing of umbilical cord clamping in neonatal care has been a subject of debate for decades. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a significant tool for providing medical information. This study aimed to compare the accuracy, reliability, and comprehensiveness of information provided by ChatGPT and Google regarding the effects of cord clamping timing in neonatal care. MethodsA comparative analysis was conducted using ChatGPT-4 and Google Search. The search terms included "cord clamping time," "early clamping," "delayed clamping," and "cord milking." The first 20 frequently asked questions (FAQs) and their responses from both platforms were recorded and categorized according to the Rothwell classification system. The accuracy and reliability of the answers were assessed using content analysis and statistical comparison. ResultsChatGPT outperformed Google in terms of scientific accuracy, objectivity, and source reliability. ChatGPT provided a higher proportion of responses based on academic and medical sources, particularly in the categories of technical details (40%) and delayed cord clamping benefits (30%). In contrast, Google yielded more information in early cord clamping effects (25%) and cord milking (20%). ChatGPT achieved 80% accuracy in medical information, whereas Google reached only 40%. ConclusionWhile both platforms offer valuable information, ChatGPT demonstrated superior accuracy and reliability in neonatal care topics, making it a more suitable tool for healthcare professionals. However, Google remains useful for general information searches. Future studies should explore AIs potential in clinical decision-support systems.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact of electronic medical records on healthcare delivery in Nigeria: A Review 95%
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 94%
- The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Large language models for generating medical examinations: systematic review 96%
- Performance of ChatGPT on Chinese National Medical Licensing Examinations: A Five-Year Examination Evaluation Study for Physicians, Pharmacists and Nurses 95%
- Competency for Japanese Novice Medical Laboratory Scientists: A Delphi Method 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Web-based, Mobile Responsive Application to Screen Healthcare Workers for COVID Symptoms: Descriptive Study 94%
- The potential for digital patient symptom recording through symptom assessment applications to optimize patient flow and reduce waiting times in Urgent Care Centers: a simulation study 94%
- Is virtual care the new normal? Evidence supporting Covid-19’s durable transformation on healthcare delivery 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Evaluation of MADDIE: Method to Acquire Delivery Date Information from Electronic Health Records 94%
- Synthetic Data Generation in Healthcare: A Scoping Review of reviews on domains, motivations, and future applications 94%
- Performance of Advanced Large Language Models (GPT-4o, GPT-4, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3 Opus) on Japanese Medical Licensing Examination: A Comparative Study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating user experience with immersive technology in simulation-based education: a modified Delphi study with qualitative analysis 94%
- REPLICCAR II Study: Data Quality Audit in the Paulista Cardiovascular Surgery Registry 94%
- A Scoping Review Protocol on Integration of mobile-linked POC diagnostics in community-based healthcare: User Experience 94%
"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.