Performance of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots on Ultrasound Examinations: Cross-Sectional Comparative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence chatbots are being increasingly used for medical inquiries, particularly in the field of ultrasound medicine. However, their performance varies and is influenced by factors such as language, question type, and topic. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT and ERNIE Bot in answering ultrasound-related medical examination questions, providing insights for users and developers. Methods: We curated 554 questions from ultrasound medicine examinations, covering various question types and topics. The questions were posed in both English and Chinese. Objective questions were scored based on accuracy rates, whereas subjective questions were rated by 5 experienced doctors using a Likert scale. The data were analyzed in Excel. Results: Of the 554 questions included in this study, single-choice questions comprised the largest share (354/554, 64%), followed by short answers (69/554, 12%) and noun explanations (63/554, 11%). The accuracy rates for objective questions ranged from 8.33% to 80%, with true or false questions scoring highest. Subjective questions received acceptability rates ranging from 47.62% to 75.36%. ERNIE Bot was superior to ChatGPT in many aspects (P<.05). Both models showed a performance decline in English, but ERNIE Bot's decline was less significant. The models performed better in terms of basic knowledge, ultrasound methods, and diseases than in terms of ultrasound signs and diagnosis. Conclusions: Chatbots can provide valuable ultrasound-related answers, but performance differs by model and is influenced by language, question type, and topic. In general, ERNIE Bot outperforms ChatGPT. Users and developers should understand model performance characteristics and select appropriate models for different questions and languages to optimize chatbot use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".