Back to search

Article

ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0: A Head to Head Comparison in Generating Pharyngitis Patient Guides

2024-08-31

Abstract excerpt

<h4>Objectives: </h4> This study aims to evaluate and compare the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and readability of responses generated by ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 to common patient questions regarding pharyngitis. <h4>Design:</h4> A cross-sectional study design was employed, wherein 30 potential patient questions regarding pharyngitis were posed to both ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0. The questions were categorized...

Topics

Open a Topic to create a Post that cites this publication.

Identifiers and source

Literature Corpus work
398d6c33-8b70-5719-af57-d2373ec9c921
DOI
10.22541/au.172513615.51808488/v1
Open publication

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest
Interactive article relationship graphSelect a related publication card to move it into the centre and load its closest explainable connections. Solid lines are source-backed structured connections. Dashed lines are semantic discovery signals and are not scientific evidence.
ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0: A Head to Head Comparison in Generating Pharyngitis Patient GuidesDOI 10.22541/au.172513615.51808488/v1
Assessing the Quality of AI-Generated Health Information: A Comparative Study of Large Language Models in Patient Education on Dental VeneersSemantic proximity
Readability, Quality, Understandability, and Actionability of ChatGPT Generated GI Patient Education vs AGA Patient CenterSemantic proximity
Quality and Readability of Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Questions About Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency: A Comparative StudySemantic proximity
Reliability and Clinical Accuracy of ChatGPT in Post-FESS Counselling: A Multi-Reviewer Evaluation.Semantic proximity
ChatGPT Provides High-Quality Responses to Patient Questions: A Multi-Rater Evaluation by Anesthesiology ExpertsSemantic proximity
Comparative efficacy of ChatGPT-5.1 Auto and DeepSeek-V3.1 Thinking in answering patients’ questions on cervical spine surgerySemantic proximity
Enhancing Patient Education With AI:A Readability Analysis of AI-Generated Versus American Academy of Ophthalmology Online Patient Education MaterialsSemantic proximity
Assessing ChatGPT's Performance in Delineating Uveitis: An analysis of responses to real-world case presentationsSemantic proximity
Comparative Evaluation of ChatGPT-5 and DeepSeek-V3 for Generating Prosthodontic Multiple-Choice Questions: An Expert-Rated StudySemantic proximity
Benchmarking the Performance of Large Language Models in Uveitis: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Google Gemini, and Anthropic Claude3Semantic proximity
A Comparison of Quality and Readability of ChatGPT-4 generated and Human-generated Patient Education Materials for Total Knee ArthroplastySemantic proximity
ChatGPT for use as a resource for providing patient information relating to functional endoscopic sinus surgery -- a questionnaire-based assessment.Semantic proximity
Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.