Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Otolaryngologyarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Otolaryngology
Article . 2023 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
Otolaryngology
Article . 2024
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

BPPV Information on Google Versus AI (ChatGPT)

Authors: Jeffrey R, Bellinger; Julian S, De La Chapa; Minhie W, Kwak; Gabriel A, Ramos; Daniel, Morrison; Bradley W, Kesser;

BPPV Information on Google Versus AI (ChatGPT)

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo quantitatively compare online patient education materials found using traditional search engines (Google) versus conversational Artificial Intelligence (AI) models (ChatGPT) for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV).Study DesignThe top 30 Google search results for “benign paroxysmal positional vertigo” were compared to the OpenAI conversational AI language model, ChatGPT, responses for 5 common patient questions posed about BPPV in February 2023. Metrics included readability, quality, understandability, and actionability.SettingOnline information.MethodsValidated online information metrics including Flesch‐Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), DISCERN instrument score, and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials were analyzed and scored by reviewers.ResultsMean readability scores, FKGL and FRE, for the Google webpages were 10.7 ± 2.6 and 46.5 ± 14.3, respectively. ChatGPT responses had a higher FKGL score of 13.9 ± 2.5 (P < .001) and a lower FRE score of 34.9 ± 11.2 (P = .005), both corresponding to lower readability. The Google webpages had a DISCERN part 2 score of 25.4 ± 7.5 compared to the individual ChatGPT responses with a score of 17.5 ± 3.9 (P = .001), and the combined ChatGPT responses with a score of 25.0 ± 0.9 (P = .928). The average scores of the reviewers for all ChatGPT responses for accuracy were 4.19 ± 0.82 and 4.31 ± 0.67 for currency.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that the information on ChatGPT is more difficult to read, of lower quality, and more difficult to comprehend compared to information on Google searches.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Search Engine, Internet, Patient Education as Topic, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo, Comprehension

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    34
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
34
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 1%
Related to Research communities
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!