Letter to the Editor
On “Comparison of the Usability and Reliability of Answers to Clinical Questions: AI-Generated ChatGPT versus a Human-Authored Resource”
Abstract
To the Editor: We would like to comment regarding the article by Manian and colleagues, “Comparison of the Usability and Reliability of Answers to Clinical Questions: AI-Generated ChatGPT versus a Human-Authored Resource.”1 The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usability and reliability of clinical question responses generated by Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) to those created by humans on the medical Web site Pearls4Peers.com (P4P). The researchers focused on two aspects of clinical data quality: usability (organization, readability, relevance, and utility) and reliability (clarity, accuracy, and completeness).This content is limited to qualifying members.
Existing members, please login first
If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.
Purchase only this article ($25)
Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.
Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)
Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.
Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)
Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.
References
1. Manian FA, Garland K, Ding J. Comparisonoftheusability and reliability of answers to clinical questions: AI-generated ChatGPT versus a human-authored resource. South Med J 2024;117:467–473.
