Evaluating the scientific reliability of ChatGPT as a source of information on asthma

Simon Høj BSc , Simon Francis Thomsen MD, PhD, DMSci , Charlotte Suppli Ulrik MD, PhD, DMSci , Hanieh Meteran MD , Torben Sigsgaard MD, PhD , Howraman Meteran MD, PhD
{"title":"Evaluating the scientific reliability of ChatGPT as a source of information on asthma","authors":"Simon Høj BSc ,&nbsp;Simon Francis Thomsen MD, PhD, DMSci ,&nbsp;Charlotte Suppli Ulrik MD, PhD, DMSci ,&nbsp;Hanieh Meteran MD ,&nbsp;Torben Sigsgaard MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Howraman Meteran MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacig.2024.100330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>This study assessed the reliability of ChatGPT as a source of information on asthma, given the increasing use of artificial intelligence–driven models for medical information. Prior concerns about misinformation on atopic diseases in various digital platforms underline the importance of this evaluation.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>We aimed to evaluate the scientific reliability of ChatGPT as a source of information on asthma.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The study involved analyzing ChatGPT’s responses to 26 asthma-related questions, each followed by a follow-up question. These encompassed definition/risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, lifestyle factors, and specific clinical inquiries. Medical professionals specialized in allergic and respiratory diseases independently assessed the responses using a 1-to-5 accuracy scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Approximately 81% of the responses scored 4 or higher, suggesting a generally high accuracy level. However, 5 responses scored &gt;3, indicating minor potentially harmful inaccuracies. The overall median score was 4. Fleiss multirater kappa value showed moderate agreement among raters.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>ChatGPT generally provides reliable asthma-related information, but its limitations, such as lack of depth in certain responses and inability to cite sources or update in real time, were noted. It shows promise as an educational tool, but it should not be a substitute for professional medical advice. Future studies should explore its applicability for different user demographics and compare it with newer artificial intelligence models.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":75041,"journal":{"name":"The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global","volume":"3 4","pages":"Article 100330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772829324001267/pdfft?md5=31dff3c3eab39fc9f40519b2c8ca51eb&pid=1-s2.0-S2772829324001267-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772829324001267","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

This study assessed the reliability of ChatGPT as a source of information on asthma, given the increasing use of artificial intelligence–driven models for medical information. Prior concerns about misinformation on atopic diseases in various digital platforms underline the importance of this evaluation.

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the scientific reliability of ChatGPT as a source of information on asthma.

Methods

The study involved analyzing ChatGPT’s responses to 26 asthma-related questions, each followed by a follow-up question. These encompassed definition/risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, lifestyle factors, and specific clinical inquiries. Medical professionals specialized in allergic and respiratory diseases independently assessed the responses using a 1-to-5 accuracy scale.

Results

Approximately 81% of the responses scored 4 or higher, suggesting a generally high accuracy level. However, 5 responses scored >3, indicating minor potentially harmful inaccuracies. The overall median score was 4. Fleiss multirater kappa value showed moderate agreement among raters.

Conclusion

ChatGPT generally provides reliable asthma-related information, but its limitations, such as lack of depth in certain responses and inability to cite sources or update in real time, were noted. It shows promise as an educational tool, but it should not be a substitute for professional medical advice. Future studies should explore its applicability for different user demographics and compare it with newer artificial intelligence models.

评估 ChatGPT 作为哮喘信息来源的科学可靠性
背景本研究评估了 ChatGPT 作为哮喘信息来源的可靠性,因为越来越多的医疗信息使用人工智能驱动的模型。我们旨在评估 ChatGPT 作为哮喘信息来源的科学可靠性。方法本研究分析了 ChatGPT 对 26 个哮喘相关问题的回答,每个问题后都有一个后续问题。这些问题包括定义/危险因素、诊断、治疗、生活方式因素和具体的临床询问。结果约有 81% 的回答得分在 4 分或以上,表明准确率普遍较高。不过,有 5 个回答得分为 3 分,表明存在轻微的潜在误差。总分中位数为 4 分。Fleiss multirater kappa 值显示评分者之间存在中等程度的一致性。结论ChatGPT 总体上提供了可靠的哮喘相关信息,但也指出了其局限性,如某些回答缺乏深度,无法引用来源或实时更新。它有望成为一种教育工具,但不应取代专业医疗建议。未来的研究应该探索它对不同用户群的适用性,并将其与更新的人工智能模型进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global
The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global Immunology, Allergology and Rheumatology
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
92 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信