Comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4o mini, ChatGPT-4o and Gemini Advanced in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis
Rui Liu,
No information about this author
Jianjun Liu,
No information about this author
Jia Yang
No information about this author
et al.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders,
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
26(1)
Published: April 16, 2025
Language: Английский
Evaluating the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4o in the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination
Dingyuan Luo,
No information about this author
Mengke Liu,
No information about this author
Runyuan Yu
No information about this author
et al.
Scientific Reports,
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
15(1)
Published: April 23, 2025
Language: Английский
Response to: comparative performance of artificial intelligence models in rheumatology board-level questions: evaluating Google Gemini and ChatGPT-4o: correspondence
Clinical Rheumatology,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
43(12), P. 4023 - 4024
Published: Oct. 22, 2024
Language: Английский
Assessing the accuracy and readability of ChatGPT-4 and Gemini in answering oral cancer queries—an exploratory study
Published: Nov. 19, 2024
Aim:
This
study
aims
to
evaluate
the
accuracy
and
readability
of
responses
generated
by
two
large
language
models
(LLMs)
(ChatGPT-4
Gemini)
frequently
asked
questions
lay
persons
(the
general
public)
about
signs
symptoms,
risk
factors,
screening,
diagnosis,
treatment,
prevention,
survival
in
relation
oral
cancer.
Methods:
The
each
response
given
LLMs
was
rated
four
cancer
experts,
blinded
source
responses.
as
1:
complete,
2:
correct
but
insufficient,
3:
includes
incorrect/outdated
information,
4:
completely
incorrect.
Frequency,
mean
scores
for
question,
overall
were
calculated.
Readability
analyzed
using
Flesch
Reading
Ease
Flesch-Kincaid
Grade
Level
(FKGL)
tests.
Results:
ChatGPT-4
ranged
from
1.00
2.00,
with
an
score
1.50
(SD
0.36),
indicating
that
usually
sometimes
insufficient.
Gemini
had
ranging
1.75,
1.20
0.27),
suggesting
more
complete
Mann-Whitney
U
test
revealed
a
statistically
significant
difference
between
models’
(p
=
0.02),
outperforming
terms
completeness
accuracy.
ChatGPT
generally
produces
content
at
lower
grade
level
(average
FKGL:
10.3)
compared
12.3)
0.004).
Conclusions:
provides
accurate
people
may
seek
answers
ChatGPT-4,
although
its
less
readable.
Further
improvements
model
training
evaluation
consistency
are
needed
enhance
reliability
utility
healthcare
settings.
Language: Английский
Comparative performance of artificial intelligence models in rheumatology board-level questions: evaluating Google Gemini and ChatGPT-4o: correspondence
Clinical Rheumatology,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
43(12), P. 4015 - 4016
Published: Oct. 10, 2024
Language: Английский
Innovations in Introductory Programming Education: The Role of AI with Google Colab and Gemini
Education Sciences,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
14(12), P. 1330 - 1330
Published: Dec. 4, 2024
This
study
explores
the
impact
of
artificial
intelligence
on
teaching
programming,
focusing
GenAI
Gemini
tool
in
Google
Colab.
It
evaluates
how
this
technology
influences
comprehension
fundamental
concepts,
processes,
and
effective
practices.
In
research,
students’
motivation,
interest,
satisfaction
are
determined,
as
well
fulfillment
surpassing
their
learning
expectations.
With
a
quantitative
approach
quasi-experimental
design,
an
investigation
was
carried
out
seven
programming
groups
polytechnic
university
Guayaquil,
Ecuador.
The
results
reveal
that
use
significantly
increases
interest
with
91%
respondents
expressing
increased
enthusiasm.
addition,
90%
feel
integration
meets
expectations,
it
has
exceeded
those
expectations
terms
educational
support.
evidences
value
integrating
advanced
technologies
into
education,
suggesting
can
transform
programming.
However,
successful
implementation
depends
timely
training
educators,
ethics
for
students,
ongoing
technology,
curriculum
design
maximizes
capabilities
GenAI.
Language: Английский