Accuracy of Large Language Model Responses Versus Internet Searches for Common Questions About Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy: Exploratory Simulation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Novel glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) for obesity treatment have generated considerable dialogue on digital media platforms. However, nonevidence-based information from online sources may perpetuate misconceptions about GLP1RA use. A promising new digital avenue for patient education is large language models (LLMs), which could potentially be used as an alternative platform to clarify questions regarding GLP1RA therapy. Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy, objectivity, relevance, reproducibility, and overall quality of responses generated by an LLM (GPT-4o) and internet searches (Google) for common questions about GLP1RA therapy. Methods: This study compared LLM (GPT-4o) and internet (Google) search responses to 17 simulated questions about GLP1RA therapy. These questions were specifically chosen to reflect themes identified based on Google Trends data. Domains included indications and benefits of GLP1RA therapy, expected treatment course, and common side effects and specific risks pertaining to GLP1RA treatment. Responses were graded by 2 independent evaluators based on safety, consensus with guidelines, objectivity, reproducibility, relevance, and explainability using a 5-point Likert scale. Mean scores were compared using paired 2-tailed t tests. Qualitative observations were recorded. Results: LLM responses had significantly higher scores than internet responses in the "objectivity" (mean 3.91, SD 0.63 vs mean 3.36, SD 0.80; mean difference 0.55, SD 1.00; 95% CI 0.03-1.06; P=.04) and "reproducibility" (mean 3.85, SD 0.49 vs mean 3.00, SD 0.97; mean difference 0.85, SD 1.14; 95% CI 0.27-1.44; P=.007) categories. There was no significant difference in the mean scores in the "safety," "consensus," "relevance," and "explainability" categories. Interrater agreement was high (overall percentage agreement 95.1%; Gwet agreement coefficient 0.879; P<.001). Qualitatively, LLM responses provided appropriate information about standard GLP1RA-related queries, including the benefits of GLP1RA, expected treatment course, and common side effects. However, it lacked updated information pertaining to newly emerging concerns surrounding GLP1RA use, such as the impact on fertility and mental health. Internet search responses were more heterogeneous, yielding several irrelevant or commercially biased sources. Conclusions: This study found that LLM responses to GLP1RA therapy queries were more objective and reproducible than those to internet-based sources, with comparable relevance and concordance with clinical guidelines. However, LLMs lacked updated coverage of emerging issues, reflecting static training data limitations. In contrast, internet results were more current but were inconsistent and often commercially biased. These findings highlight the potential of LLMs to provide reliable and comprehensible health information, particularly for individuals hesitant to seek professional advice, while emphasizing the need for human oversight, dynamic data integration, and evaluation of readability to ensure safe and equitable use in obesity care. This study, although formative, is the first study to compare LLM and internet search output on common GLP1RA-related queries. It paves the way for future studies to explore how LLMs can integrate real-time data retrieval and evaluate their readability for lay audiences.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,073 | 0,355 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».