Search

Purpose: The usage of Chatbots as a kind of Artificial Intelligence in medicine is getting to increase in recent years. UpToDate® is another well-known search tool established on evidence-based knowledge and is used daily by doctors worldwide. In this study, we aimed to investigate the usefulness and reliability of ChatGPT compared to UpToDate in Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (ORL–HNS). Materials and methods: ChatGPT-3.5 and UpToDate were interrogated for the management of 25 common clinical case scenarios (13 males/12 females) recruited from literature considering the daily observation at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology of Ege University Faculty of Medicine. Scientific references for the management were requested for each clinical case. The accuracy of the references in the ChatGPT answers was assessed on a 0–2 scale and the usefulness of the ChatGPT and UpToDate answers was assessed with 1–3 scores by reviewers. UpToDate and ChatGPT 3.5 responses were compared. Results: ChatGPT did not give references in some questions in contrast to UpToDate. Information on the ChatGPT was limited to 2021. UpToDate supported the paper with subheadings, tables, figures, and algorithms. The mean accuracy score of references in ChatGPT answers was 0.25–weak/unrelated. The median (Q1–Q3) was 1.00 (1.25–2.00) for ChatGPT and 2.63 (2.75–3.00) for UpToDate, the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). UpToDate was observed more useful and reliable than ChatGPT. Conclusions: ChatGPT has the potential to support the physicians to find out the information but our results suggest that ChatGPT needs to be improved to increase the usefulness and reliability of medical evidence-based knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chatbot generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) is a new artificial intelligence-powered language model of chatbot able to help otolaryngologists in practice and research. We investigated the accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 and -4 in the referencing of manuscripts published in otolaryngology. Methods: ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 were interrogated for providing references of the top-30 most cited papers in otolaryngology in the past 40 years including clinical guidelines and key studies that changed the practice. The responses were regenerated three times to assess the accuracy and stability of ChatGPT. ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 were compared for accuracy of reference and potential mistakes. Results: The accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 ranged from 47% to 60%, and 73% to 87%, respectively (p < 0.005). ChatGPT-3.5 provided 19 inaccurate references and invented 2 references throughout the regenerated questions. ChatGPT-4.0 provided 13 inaccurate references, while it proposed only one invented reference. The stability of responses throughout regenerated answers was mild (k = 0.238) and moderate (k = 0.408) for ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0, respectively. Conclusions: ChatGPT-4.0 reported higher accuracy than the free-access version (3.5). False references were detected in both 3.5 and 4.0 versions. Practitioners need to be careful regarding the use of ChatGPT in the reach of some key reference when writing a report. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]