Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Comparison of the audiological knowledge of three chatbots – ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Bard

View ORCID ProfileW. Wiktor Jedrzejczak, View ORCID ProfileKrzysztof Kochanek
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.22.23298893
W. Wiktor Jedrzejczak
1Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, ul. Mochnackiego 10, 02-042 Warsaw, Poland
2World Hearing Center, ul. Mokra 17, 05-830 Kajetany, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for W. Wiktor Jedrzejczak
  • For correspondence: w.wiktor.j{at}gmail.com
Krzysztof Kochanek
1Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, ul. Mochnackiego 10, 02-042 Warsaw, Poland
2World Hearing Center, ul. Mokra 17, 05-830 Kajetany, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Krzysztof Kochanek
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate three chatbots – OpenAI ChatGPT, Microsoft Bing Chat, and Google Bard – in terms of their responses to a defined set of audiological questions.

Design Each chatbot was presented with the same 10 questions. The authors rated the responses on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Additional features, such as the number of inaccuracies or errors and the provision of references, were also examined.

Results Most responses given by all three chatbots were rated as satisfactory or better. However all chatbots generated at least a few errors or inaccuracies. ChatGPT achieved the highest overall score, while Bard was the worst. Bard was also the only chatbot unable to provide a response to one of the questions. ChatGPT was the only chatbot that did not provide information about its sources.

Conclusions Chatbots are an intriguing tool that can be used to access basic information in a specialized area like audiology. Nevertheless, one needs to be careful, as correct information is not infrequently mixed in with errors that are hard to pick up unless the user is well versed in the field.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available as supplementary files.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted November 22, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of the audiological knowledge of three chatbots – ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Bard
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of the audiological knowledge of three chatbots – ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Bard
W. Wiktor Jedrzejczak, Krzysztof Kochanek
medRxiv 2023.11.22.23298893; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.22.23298893
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparison of the audiological knowledge of three chatbots – ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Bard
W. Wiktor Jedrzejczak, Krzysztof Kochanek
medRxiv 2023.11.22.23298893; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.22.23298893

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Otolaryngology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)