Back

Analyzing the Capacity of ChatGPT and Google to Provide Medical Information: Insights from Umbilical Cord Clamping

Bülbül, R.; Ozdemir Kacer, E.

2025-04-28 medical education
10.1101/2025.04.26.25326503 medRxiv
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.

50% of probability mass above

"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.