Suppr超能文献

人工智能与公共卫生:评估ChatGPT对疫苗接种谣言和误解的回应

Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: Evaluating ChatGPT Responses to Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions.

作者信息

Deiana Giovanna, Dettori Marco, Arghittu Antonella, Azara Antonio, Gabutti Giovanni, Castiglia Paolo

机构信息

Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy.

Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University Hospital of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy.

出版信息

Vaccines (Basel). 2023 Jul 7;11(7):1217. doi: 10.3390/vaccines11071217.

Abstract

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 ( 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.

摘要

诸如ChatGPT之类的人工智能(AI)工具在医疗保健等领域的可能应用引发了激烈的争论。本研究评估了ChatGPT在疫苗接种主题上提供答案的正确性、清晰度和详尽性。世界卫生组织关于疫苗接种的11条“误解和错误观念”被用于询问ChatGPT的免费版本(GPT - 3.5)和付费版本(GPT - 4.0)。两位专家评分员独立参照世界卫生组织提供的那些误解和错误观念,对人工智能工具的回答进行了定性和定量评估。两个版本评分员之间的一致性都很显著(K < 0.05)。总体而言,ChatGPT的回答易于理解,尽管其中一个问题被误解了,但准确率仍达85.4%。定性地说,GPT - 4.0的回答在正确性、清晰度和详尽性方面优于GPT - 3.5的回答(分别相差5.6%、17.9%、9.3%)。该研究表明,如果提问恰当,人工智能工具在医疗保健领域可以是一种有用的辅助手段。然而,当非专业用户在没有专家医疗建议支持的情况下咨询这些工具时,它们存在引发误导性回答的风险。此外,鉴于现有的信息获取社会差距,付费版本回答准确性的提高引发了进一步的伦理问题。

相似文献

8
Decoding dietary myths: The role of ChatGPT in modern nutrition.解读饮食误区:ChatGPT 在现代营养学中的作用。
Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2024 Apr;60:285-288. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.02.022. Epub 2024 Feb 23.

引用本文的文献

8
Is there any room for ChatGPT AI bot in speech-language pathology?在言语语言病理学领域,ChatGPT人工智能聊天机器人有立足之地吗?
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2025 Jun;282(6):3267-3280. doi: 10.1007/s00405-025-09295-y. Epub 2025 Mar 1.

本文引用的文献

1
Large language models encode clinical knowledge.大语言模型编码临床知识。
Nature. 2023 Aug;620(7972):172-180. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06291-2. Epub 2023 Jul 12.
4
Ethics of large language models in medicine and medical research.医学及医学研究中大型语言模型的伦理问题。
Lancet Digit Health. 2023 Jun;5(6):e333-e335. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00083-3. Epub 2023 Apr 27.
7
Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine fatigue.新冠疫苗疲劳的决定因素。
Nat Med. 2023 May;29(5):1164-1171. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02282-y. Epub 2023 Mar 27.
10
Coronavirus Disease-2019 Vaccine Hesitancy.新型冠状病毒病 2019 疫苗犹豫
Pediatr Clin North Am. 2023 Apr;70(2):243-257. doi: 10.1016/j.pcl.2022.12.001. Epub 2022 Dec 8.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验