Abstract
Objective We aimed to evaluate the performance of two publicly available large language models, ChatGPT and Google Gemini in response to multiple-choice questions related to vestibular rehabilitation.
Methods The study was conducted among 30 physical therapist professionals experienced with VR (vestibular rehabilitation) and 30 physical therapy students. They were asked to complete a Vestibular Knowledge Test (VKT) consisting of 20 multiple-choice questions that were divided into three categories: (1) Clinical Knowledge, (2) Basic Clinical Practice, and (3) Clinical Reasoning. ChatGPT and Google Gemini were tasked with answering the same 20 VKT questions. Three board-certified otoneurologists independently evaluated the accuracy of each response using a 4-level scale, ranging from comprehensive to completely incorrect.
Results ChatGPT outperformed Google Gemini with a 70% score on the VKT test, while Gemini scored 60%. Both excelled in Clinical Knowledge with a perfect score of 100% but struggled in Clinical Reasoning with ChatGPT scoring 50% and Gemini scoring 25%. According to three otoneurologic experts, ChatGPT’s accuracy was considered comprehensive in 45% of the 20 questions, while 25% were found to be completely incorrect. ChatGPT provided comprehensive responses in 50% of Clinical Knowledge and Basic Clinical Practice questions, but only 25% in Clinical Reasoning.
Conclusion Caution is advised when using ChatGPT and Google Gemini due to their limited accuracy in clinical reasoning. While they provide accurate responses concerning Clinical Knowledge, their reliance on web information may lead to inconsistencies. ChatGPT performed better than Gemini. Healthcare professionals should carefully formulate questions and be aware of the potential influence of the online prevalence of information on ChatGPT’s and Google Gemini’s responses. Combining clinical expertise and clinical guidelines with ChatGPT and Google Gemini can maximize benefits while mitigating limitations.
Impact Statement This study highlights the potential utility of large language models like ChatGPT in supplementing clinical knowledge for physical therapists, while underscoring the need for caution in domains requiring complex clinical reasoning. The findings emphasize the importance of integrating technological tools carefully with human expertise to enhance patient care and rehabilitation outcomes.
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
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Non-clinical Studies at Bar Ilan-University in Israel. The ethics form was signed by the committee head and the date of approval was 21 May 2023.
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
Footnotes
Email: liora.shmueli{at}biu.ac.il; yaelavi{at}gmail.com, ygimmon{at}univ.haifa.ac.il
significant differences between this version and previous versions of the manuscript.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
