These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Beyond the Hype-The Actual Role and Risks of AI in Today's Medical Practice: Comparative-Approach Study.
    Author: Hansen S, Brandt CJ, Søndergaard J.
    Journal: JMIR AI; 2024 Jan 22; 3():e49082. PubMed ID: 38875597.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly impacted various sectors, with health care witnessing some of its most groundbreaking contributions. Contemporary models, such as ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Bing, have showcased capabilities beyond just generating text, aiding in complex tasks like literature searches and refining web-based queries. OBJECTIVE: This study explores a compelling query: can AI author an academic paper independently? Our assessment focuses on four core dimensions: relevance (to ensure that AI's response directly addresses the prompt), accuracy (to ascertain that AI's information is both factually correct and current), clarity (to examine AI's ability to present coherent and logical ideas), and tone and style (to evaluate whether AI can align with the formality expected in academic writings). Additionally, we will consider the ethical implications and practicality of integrating AI into academic writing. METHODS: To assess the capabilities of ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Bing in the context of academic paper assistance in general practice, we used a systematic approach. ChatGPT-4, an advanced AI language model by Open AI, excels in generating human-like text and adapting responses based on user interactions, though it has a knowledge cut-off in September 2021. Microsoft Bing's AI chatbot facilitates user navigation on the Bing search engine, offering tailored search. RESULTS: In terms of relevance, ChatGPT-4 delved deeply into AI's health care role, citing academic sources and discussing diverse applications and concerns, while Microsoft Bing provided a concise, less detailed overview. In terms of accuracy, ChatGPT-4 correctly cited 72% (23/32) of its peer-reviewed articles but included some nonexistent references. Microsoft Bing's accuracy stood at 46% (6/13), supplemented by relevant non-peer-reviewed articles. In terms of clarity, both models conveyed clear, coherent text. ChatGPT-4 was particularly adept at detailing technical concepts, while Microsoft Bing was more general. In terms of tone, both models maintained an academic tone, but ChatGPT-4 exhibited superior depth and breadth in content delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Bing for academic assistance revealed strengths and limitations. ChatGPT-4 excels in depth and relevance but falters in citation accuracy. Microsoft Bing is concise but lacks robust detail. Though both models have potential, neither can independently handle comprehensive academic tasks. As AI evolves, combining ChatGPT-4's depth with Microsoft Bing's up-to-date referencing could optimize academic support. Researchers should critically assess AI outputs to maintain academic credibility.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]