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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Deiana, Giovanna, Dettori, Marco, Arghittu, Antonella, Azara, Antonio, Gabutti, Giovanni, Castiglia, Paolo
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