•  
  •  
 

Corresponding Author

Christopher Deibert, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 987521 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-7521, USA. Email: [email protected]

Document Type

Original Research

Disciplines

Higher Education | Medicine and Health Sciences

Abstract

Background. Use of language-learning model-based artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots in literature reviews has not been explored. The present study seeks to evaluate and compare the quality of reference lists and scientific discussion provided by ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer) (4o vs. 4) and Google Gemini.

Methods. ChatGPT (4o-mini, paid vs. 4o, free) and Google Gemini were given prompts to identify, discuss results of, and provide related references to nine specific randomized controlled trials in urologic practice. Reference lists and associated discussion were graded using modified DISCERN criteria. Hallucination rates for unverifiable references were calculated; GPT-2 Output Detector and Sapling AI Detector were used to assess detection of AI-generated text. Mean ± SD scores were calculated and compared with independent-samples T-tests.

Results. The target trial was identified in 11%, 22%, and 22% of prompts by ChatGPT 4o-mini, Google Gemini, and ChatGPT 4o, respectively. Hallucinations (out of ten) were high for ChatGPT4o and ChatGPT 4 (7.7 and 6.3, respectively); in comparison, Google Gemini was significantly less likely to hallucinate (0.17, p < 0.005). Modified DISCERN scores were poor for all three chatbots (range: 26.6 to 29.7). AI output was detected in 60-72% of responses via GPT-2 and Sapling AI.

Conclusion. AI chatbots were unable to identify the target article in most instances. Only Google Gemini appropriately refused to provide related articles and/or answer open-ended prompts if the target article could not be identified. Detection of AI-generated text was high for all chatbots, and caution should be used when using these AI resources in scientific writing or literature review.

DOI

10.32873/unmc.dc.gmerj.8.2.003

Keywords

Artificial intelligence; large language model; medical education; urology

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.