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

Comparison of ChatGPT and Gemini as sources of references in otorhinolaryngology

View ORCID ProfileW. Wiktor Jędrzejczak, View ORCID ProfileMałgorzata Pastucha, View ORCID ProfileHenryk Skarżyński, View ORCID ProfileKrzysztof Kochanek
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.12.24311896
W. Wiktor Jędrzejczak
1Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Mochnackiego 10 Street, Warsaw, Poland
2World Hearing Center, Mokra 17 Street, 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 Jędrzejczak
  • For correspondence: w.wiktor.j{at}gmail.com
Małgorzata Pastucha
1Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Mochnackiego 10 Street, Warsaw, Poland
2World Hearing Center, Mokra 17 Street, Kajetany, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Małgorzata Pastucha
Henryk Skarżyński
1Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Mochnackiego 10 Street, Warsaw, Poland
2World Hearing Center, Mokra 17 Street, Kajetany, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Henryk Skarżyński
Krzysztof Kochanek
1Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Mochnackiego 10 Street, Warsaw, Poland
2World Hearing Center, Mokra 17 Street, 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

Introduction An effective way of testing chatbots is to ask them for references since such items can be easily verified. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of ChatGPT-4 and Gemini Advanced to select accurate references on common topics in otorhinolaryngology.

Methods ChatGPT-4 and Gemini Advanced were asked to provide references on 25 topics within the otorhinolaryngology category of Web of Science. Within each topic, we set as target the most cited papers which had “guidelines” in the title. The chatbot responses were collected on three consecutive days to take into account possible variability. The accuracy and reliability of the provided references were evaluated.

Results Across the three days, the accuracy of ChatGPT-4 was 29–45% while that of Gemini Advanced was 10–17%. Common errors included false author names, false DOI numbers, and incomplete information. Lower percentage errors were associated with higher number of citations.

Conclusions Both chatbots performed poorly in finding references, although ChatGPT-4 provided higher accuracy than Gemini Advanced.

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 August 13, 2024.
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 ChatGPT and Gemini as sources of references in otorhinolaryngology
(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 ChatGPT and Gemini as sources of references in otorhinolaryngology
W. Wiktor Jędrzejczak, Małgorzata Pastucha, Henryk Skarżyński, Krzysztof Kochanek
medRxiv 2024.08.12.24311896; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.12.24311896
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparison of ChatGPT and Gemini as sources of references in otorhinolaryngology
W. Wiktor Jędrzejczak, Małgorzata Pastucha, Henryk Skarżyński, Krzysztof Kochanek
medRxiv 2024.08.12.24311896; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.12.24311896

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)