Comparing the Accuracy of Two Generated Large Language Models in Identifying Health-Related Rumors or Misconceptions and the Applicability in Health Science Popularization: Proof-of-Concept Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Health-related rumors and misconceptions are spreading at an alarming rate, fueled by the rapid development of the internet and the exponential growth of social media platforms. This phenomenon has become a pressing global concern, as the dissemination of false information can have severe consequences, including widespread panic, social instability, and even public health crises. Objective: The aim of the study is to compare the accuracy of rumor identification and the effectiveness of health science popularization between 2 generated large language models in Chinese (GPT-4 by OpenAI and Enhanced Representation through Knowledge Integration Bot [ERNIE Bot] 4.0 by Baidu). Methods: In total, 20 health rumors and misconceptions, along with 10 health truths, were randomly inputted into GPT-4 and ERNIE Bot 4.0. We prompted them to determine whether the statements were rumors or misconceptions and provide explanations for their judgment. Further, we asked them to generate a health science popularization essay. We evaluated the outcomes in terms of accuracy, effectiveness, readability, and applicability. Accuracy was assessed by the rate of correctly identifying health-related rumors, misconceptions, and truths. Effectiveness was determined by the accuracy of the generated explanation, which was assessed collaboratively by 2 research team members with a PhD in nursing. Readability was calculated by the readability formula of Chinese health education materials. Applicability was evaluated by the Chinese Suitability Assessment of Materials. Results: GPT-4 and ERNIE Bot 4.0 correctly identified all health rumors and misconceptions (100% accuracy rate). For truths, the accuracy rate was 70% (7/10) and 100% (10/10), respectively. Both mostly provided widely recognized viewpoints without obvious errors. The average readability score for the health essays was 2.92 (SD 0.85) for GPT-4 and 3.02 (SD 0.84) for ERNIE Bot 4.0 (P=.65). For applicability, except for the content and cultural appropriateness category, significant differences were observed in the total score and scores in other dimensions between them (P<.05). Conclusions: ERNIE Bot 4.0 demonstrated similar accuracy to GPT-4 in identifying Chinese rumors. Both provided widely accepted views, despite some inaccuracies. These insights enhance understanding and correct misunderstandings. For health essays, educators can learn from readable language styles of GLLMs. Finally, ERNIE Bot 4.0 aligns with Chinese expression habits, making it a good choice for a better Chinese reading experience.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».