Comparison of ChatGPT and Gemini as sources of references in otorhinolaryngology

Abstract

Introduction An effective way of testing chatbots is to ask them for references since such items can be easily verified. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of ChatGPT-4 and Gemini Advanced to select accurate references on common topics in otorhinolaryngology.

Methods ChatGPT-4 and Gemini Advanced were asked to provide references on 25 topics within the otorhinolaryngology category of Web of Science. Within each topic, we set as target the most cited papers which had “guidelines” in the title. The chatbot responses were collected on three consecutive days to take into account possible variability. The accuracy and reliability of the provided references were evaluated.

Results Across the three days, the accuracy of ChatGPT-4 was 29–45% while that of Gemini Advanced was 10–17%. Common errors included false author names, false DOI numbers, and incomplete information. Lower percentage errors were associated with higher number of citations.

Conclusions Both chatbots performed poorly in finding references, although ChatGPT-4 provided higher accuracy than Gemini Advanced.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available as supplementary files.

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif