Abstract 4145934: Racial Disparities in Knowledge of Cardiovascular Disease by Chat-Based Artificial Intelligence Models

Background: Patients and their families often explore the information available online for information about their health status. Dialogue-based artificial intelligence (AI) language models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Bing AI and Google Bard AI) havebeen developed for complex questions and answers even while still constantly evolving. We sought to assess whether AI model had knowledge of cardiovascular disease (CVD) racial disparities, including disparities associated with CVD risk factors and associated diseases. Methods: To assess the responses of various AI models to topics in cardiovascular disease disparities, we created twelve questions, with each question having varying topics and patient demographics. Each question was input into 4 different AI models and was asked three times to assess for variability in responses, and the application closed after each attempt. Results: A total of 144 responses were tabulated from ChatGPT, Google Bard, Perplexity, and Bing AI answers to 12 questions in triplicate to assess for consistency. Most responses to the same prompt were consistent across different question-and-answer sessions. ChatGPT’s responses to 75% of the questions (9 out of 12 questions) were appropriate, 25% (3 out of 12 questions) were inappropriate and none were unreliable. Google Bard's responses to 91.7% of the questions (11 out of 12 questions) were appropriate, 8.3% (1 out of 12 questions) were inappropriate and none were unreliable. Perplexity responses to 66.7% of the questions (8 out of 12 questions) were appropriate, 25% (3 out of 12 questions) were inappropriate and 8.3% of the questions (1 out of 12 questions) were unreliable. Bing AI responses to 75% of the questions (9 out of 12 questions) were appropriate, 16.7% (2 out of 12 questions) were inappropriate and 8.3% of the questions (1 out of 12 questions) were unreliable. Of the 144 prompt entries into ChatGPT, Google Bard, Perplexity, and Bing AI; 122 (84.7%) were correct, 11 (7.64%) were hedge responses and could not be binarized into a correct or incorrect response, and 11 (7.64%) were incorrect. Conclusion: Our study showed that online chat-based AI models have a broad knowledge of CVD racial disparities, however persistent gaps in knowledge about minority groups. Given that these models might be used by the general public, caution should be advised in taking responses at face value.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2024-11-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4145934
Primary Topic
Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4145934: Racial Disparities in Knowledge of Cardiovascular Disease by Chat-Based Artificial Intelligence Models

Ayodeji Johnson, Hemanshu Das, Oseiwe Eromosele, David Ouyang et al.
Circulation
Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
article

Abstract 4145934: Racial Disparities in Knowledge of Cardiovascular Disease by Chat-Based Artificial Intelligence Models

Ayodeji Johnson, Hemanshu Das, Oseiwe Eromosele, David Ouyang, Temitope Sobodu, Kelechukwu Peter Ughagwu
article en

Abstract

Background: Patients and their families often explore the information available online for information about their health status. Dialogue-based artificial intelligence (AI) language models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Bing AI and Google Bard AI) havebeen developed for complex questions and answers even while still constantly evolving. We sought to assess whether AI model had knowledge of cardiovascular disease (CVD) racial disparities, including disparities associated with CVD risk factors and associated diseases. Methods: To assess the responses of various AI models to topics in cardiovascular disease disparities, we created twelve questions, with each question having varying topics and patient demographics. Each question was input into 4 different AI models and was asked three times to assess for variability in responses, and the application closed after each attempt. Results: A total of 144 responses were tabulated from ChatGPT, Google Bard, Perplexity, and Bing AI answers to 12 questions in triplicate to assess for consistency. Most responses to the same prompt were consistent across different question-and-answer sessions. ChatGPT’s responses to 75% of the questions (9 out of 12 questions) were appropriate, 25% (3 out of 12 questions) were inappropriate and none were unreliable. Google Bard's responses to 91.7% of the questions (11 out of 12 questions) were appropriate, 8.3% (1 out of 12 questions) were inappropriate and none were unreliable. Perplexity responses to 66.7% of the questions (8 out of 12 questions) were appropriate, 25% (3 out of 12 questions) were inappropriate and 8.3% of the questions (1 out of 12 questions) were unreliable. Bing AI responses to 75% of the questions (9 out of 12 questions) were appropriate, 16.7% (2 out of 12 questions) were inappropriate and 8.3% of the questions (1 out of 12 questions) were unreliable. Of the 144 prompt entries into ChatGPT, Google Bard, Perplexity, and Bing AI; 122 (84.7%) were correct, 11 (7.64%) were hedge responses and could not be binarized into a correct or incorrect response, and 11 (7.64%) were incorrect. Conclusion: Our study showed that online chat-based AI models have a broad knowledge of CVD racial disparities, however persistent gaps in knowledge about minority groups. Given that these models might be used by the general public, caution should be advised in taking responses at face value.

CirculationVol. 150(Suppl_1)
Boston University (US), Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US), St. George's University (GD), Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (US), University of Ibadan (NG), University College Hospital, Ibadan (NG), V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University (UA)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.