疫苗接种犹豫不决:世界卫生组织与 ChatGPT-4.0 或 Gemini Advanced 之间的协议。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Annali di igiene : medicina preventiva e di comunita Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.7416/ai.2024.2657
Matteo Fiore, Alessandro Bianconi, Cecilia Acuti Martellucci, Annalisa Rosso, Enrico Zauli, Maria Elena Flacco, Lamberto Manzoli
{"title":"疫苗接种犹豫不决:世界卫生组织与 ChatGPT-4.0 或 Gemini Advanced 之间的协议。","authors":"Matteo Fiore, Alessandro Bianconi, Cecilia Acuti Martellucci, Annalisa Rosso, Enrico Zauli, Maria Elena Flacco, Lamberto Manzoli","doi":"10.7416/ai.2024.2657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An increasing number of individuals use online Artificial Intelligence (AI) - based chatbots to retrieve information on health-related topics. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy in answering vaccine-related answers of the currently most commonly used, advanced chatbots - ChatGPT-4.0 and Google Gemini Advanced.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared the answers provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) to 38 open questions on vaccination myths and misconception, with the answers created by ChatGPT-4.0 and Gemini Advanced. Responses were considered as \"appropriate\", if the information provided was coherent and not in contrast to current WHO recommendations or to drug regulatory indications.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusions: </strong>The rate of agreement between WHO answers and Chat-GPT-4.0 or Gemini Advanced was very high, as both provided 36 (94.7%) appropriate responses. The few discrepancies between WHO and AI-chatbots answers could not be considered \"harmful\", and both chatbots often invited the user to check reliable sources, such as CDC or the WHO websites, or to contact a local healthcare professional. In their current versions, both AI-chatbots may already be powerful instrument to support the traditional communication tools in primary prevention, with the potential to improve health literacy, medication adherence, and vaccine hesitancy and concerns. Given the rapid evolution of AI-based systems, further studies are strongly needed to monitor their accuracy and reliability over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":7999,"journal":{"name":"Annali di igiene : medicina preventiva e di comunita","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vaccination hesitancy: agreement between WHO and ChatGPT-4.0 or Gemini Advanced.\",\"authors\":\"Matteo Fiore, Alessandro Bianconi, Cecilia Acuti Martellucci, Annalisa Rosso, Enrico Zauli, Maria Elena Flacco, Lamberto Manzoli\",\"doi\":\"10.7416/ai.2024.2657\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An increasing number of individuals use online Artificial Intelligence (AI) - based chatbots to retrieve information on health-related topics. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy in answering vaccine-related answers of the currently most commonly used, advanced chatbots - ChatGPT-4.0 and Google Gemini Advanced.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared the answers provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) to 38 open questions on vaccination myths and misconception, with the answers created by ChatGPT-4.0 and Gemini Advanced. Responses were considered as \\\"appropriate\\\", if the information provided was coherent and not in contrast to current WHO recommendations or to drug regulatory indications.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusions: </strong>The rate of agreement between WHO answers and Chat-GPT-4.0 or Gemini Advanced was very high, as both provided 36 (94.7%) appropriate responses. The few discrepancies between WHO and AI-chatbots answers could not be considered \\\"harmful\\\", and both chatbots often invited the user to check reliable sources, such as CDC or the WHO websites, or to contact a local healthcare professional. In their current versions, both AI-chatbots may already be powerful instrument to support the traditional communication tools in primary prevention, with the potential to improve health literacy, medication adherence, and vaccine hesitancy and concerns. Given the rapid evolution of AI-based systems, further studies are strongly needed to monitor their accuracy and reliability over time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7999,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annali di igiene : medicina preventiva e di comunita\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annali di igiene : medicina preventiva e di comunita\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7416/ai.2024.2657\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annali di igiene : medicina preventiva e di comunita","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7416/ai.2024.2657","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:越来越多的人使用基于人工智能(AI)的在线聊天机器人来检索健康相关主题的信息。本研究旨在评估目前最常用的高级聊天机器人--ChatGPT-4.0 和谷歌双子座高级版--在回答疫苗相关问题时的准确性:我们将世界卫生组织(WHO)对 38 个有关疫苗接种神话和误解的开放式问题提供的答案与 ChatGPT-4.0 和 Gemini Advanced 创建的答案进行了比较。如果所提供的信息连贯一致,且与世卫组织当前的建议或药品监管适应症不存在冲突,则被视为 "适当 "的答案:世界卫生组织的回答与 Chat-GPT-4.0 或 Gemini Advanced 的一致率非常高,两者都提供了 36 个(94.7%)适当的回答。世界卫生组织和人工智能聊天机器人答案之间的少数差异不能被视为 "有害",而且两个聊天机器人都经常请用户查看可靠来源,如疾病预防控制中心或世界卫生组织网站,或联系当地医疗保健专业人员。在目前的版本中,这两个人工智能聊天机器人可能已经成为支持初级预防中传统交流工具的有力工具,具有提高健康素养、坚持用药以及疫苗犹豫和担忧的潜力。鉴于基于人工智能的系统发展迅速,我们亟需开展进一步的研究,以长期监测其准确性和可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Vaccination hesitancy: agreement between WHO and ChatGPT-4.0 or Gemini Advanced.

Background: An increasing number of individuals use online Artificial Intelligence (AI) - based chatbots to retrieve information on health-related topics. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy in answering vaccine-related answers of the currently most commonly used, advanced chatbots - ChatGPT-4.0 and Google Gemini Advanced.

Methods: We compared the answers provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) to 38 open questions on vaccination myths and misconception, with the answers created by ChatGPT-4.0 and Gemini Advanced. Responses were considered as "appropriate", if the information provided was coherent and not in contrast to current WHO recommendations or to drug regulatory indications.

Results and conclusions: The rate of agreement between WHO answers and Chat-GPT-4.0 or Gemini Advanced was very high, as both provided 36 (94.7%) appropriate responses. The few discrepancies between WHO and AI-chatbots answers could not be considered "harmful", and both chatbots often invited the user to check reliable sources, such as CDC or the WHO websites, or to contact a local healthcare professional. In their current versions, both AI-chatbots may already be powerful instrument to support the traditional communication tools in primary prevention, with the potential to improve health literacy, medication adherence, and vaccine hesitancy and concerns. Given the rapid evolution of AI-based systems, further studies are strongly needed to monitor their accuracy and reliability over time.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annali di igiene : medicina preventiva e di comunita
Annali di igiene : medicina preventiva e di comunita HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
期刊最新文献
Intentions to move abroad among medical students: a cross-sectional study to investigate determinants and opinions. Prevalence and predictors of hand hygiene compliance in clinical, surgical and intensive care unit wards: results of a second cross-sectional study at the Umberto I teaching hospital of Rome. The prevention of medication errors in the home care setting: a scoping review. Training in infection prevention and control: survey on the volume and on the learning demands of healthcare-associated infections control figures in the Emilia-Romagna Region (Northern Italy). Machine learning vs. regression models to predict the risk of Legionella contamination in a hospital water network.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1