Cargando…
Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: Evaluating ChatGPT Responses to Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, are the subject of intense debate regarding their possible applications in contexts such as health care. This study evaluates the Correctness, Clarity, and Exhaustiveness of the answers provided by ChatGPT on the topic of vaccination. The World He...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386180/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37515033 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071217 |
_version_ | 1785081598434082816 |
---|---|
author | Deiana, Giovanna Dettori, Marco Arghittu, Antonella Azara, Antonio Gabutti, Giovanni Castiglia, Paolo |
author_facet | Deiana, Giovanna Dettori, Marco Arghittu, Antonella Azara, Antonio Gabutti, Giovanni Castiglia, Paolo |
author_sort | Deiana, Giovanna |
collection | PubMed |
description | Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, are the subject of intense debate regarding their possible applications in contexts such as health care. This study evaluates the Correctness, Clarity, and Exhaustiveness of the answers provided by ChatGPT on the topic of vaccination. The World Health Organization’s 11 “myths and misconceptions” about vaccinations were administered to both the free (GPT-3.5) and paid version (GPT-4.0) of ChatGPT. The AI tool’s responses were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively, in reference to those myth and misconceptions provided by WHO, independently by two expert Raters. The agreement between the Raters was significant for both versions (p of K < 0.05). Overall, ChatGPT responses were easy to understand and 85.4% accurate although one of the questions was misinterpreted. Qualitatively, the GPT-4.0 responses were superior to the GPT-3.5 responses in terms of Correctness, Clarity, and Exhaustiveness (Δ = 5.6%, 17.9%, 9.3%, respectively). The study shows that, if appropriately questioned, AI tools can represent a useful aid in the health care field. However, when consulted by non-expert users, without the support of expert medical advice, these tools are not free from the risk of eliciting misleading responses. Moreover, given the existing social divide in information access, the improved accuracy of answers from the paid version raises further ethical issues. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10386180 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103861802023-07-30 Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: Evaluating ChatGPT Responses to Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions Deiana, Giovanna Dettori, Marco Arghittu, Antonella Azara, Antonio Gabutti, Giovanni Castiglia, Paolo Vaccines (Basel) Article Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, are the subject of intense debate regarding their possible applications in contexts such as health care. This study evaluates the Correctness, Clarity, and Exhaustiveness of the answers provided by ChatGPT on the topic of vaccination. The World Health Organization’s 11 “myths and misconceptions” about vaccinations were administered to both the free (GPT-3.5) and paid version (GPT-4.0) of ChatGPT. The AI tool’s responses were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively, in reference to those myth and misconceptions provided by WHO, independently by two expert Raters. The agreement between the Raters was significant for both versions (p of K < 0.05). Overall, ChatGPT responses were easy to understand and 85.4% accurate although one of the questions was misinterpreted. Qualitatively, the GPT-4.0 responses were superior to the GPT-3.5 responses in terms of Correctness, Clarity, and Exhaustiveness (Δ = 5.6%, 17.9%, 9.3%, respectively). The study shows that, if appropriately questioned, AI tools can represent a useful aid in the health care field. However, when consulted by non-expert users, without the support of expert medical advice, these tools are not free from the risk of eliciting misleading responses. Moreover, given the existing social divide in information access, the improved accuracy of answers from the paid version raises further ethical issues. MDPI 2023-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10386180/ /pubmed/37515033 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071217 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Deiana, Giovanna Dettori, Marco Arghittu, Antonella Azara, Antonio Gabutti, Giovanni Castiglia, Paolo Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: Evaluating ChatGPT Responses to Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions |
title | Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: Evaluating ChatGPT Responses to Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions |
title_full | Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: Evaluating ChatGPT Responses to Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions |
title_fullStr | Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: Evaluating ChatGPT Responses to Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions |
title_full_unstemmed | Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: Evaluating ChatGPT Responses to Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions |
title_short | Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: Evaluating ChatGPT Responses to Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions |
title_sort | artificial intelligence and public health: evaluating chatgpt responses to vaccination myths and misconceptions |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386180/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37515033 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071217 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT deianagiovanna artificialintelligenceandpublichealthevaluatingchatgptresponsestovaccinationmythsandmisconceptions AT dettorimarco artificialintelligenceandpublichealthevaluatingchatgptresponsestovaccinationmythsandmisconceptions AT arghittuantonella artificialintelligenceandpublichealthevaluatingchatgptresponsestovaccinationmythsandmisconceptions AT azaraantonio artificialintelligenceandpublichealthevaluatingchatgptresponsestovaccinationmythsandmisconceptions AT gabuttigiovanni artificialintelligenceandpublichealthevaluatingchatgptresponsestovaccinationmythsandmisconceptions AT castigliapaolo artificialintelligenceandpublichealthevaluatingchatgptresponsestovaccinationmythsandmisconceptions |