Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Dr. Google vs. Dr. ChatGPT in Online Health Self-Consultation: A Scoping Review of Accuracy, Bias, and Actionability (2023–2025)
0
Zitationen
3
Autoren
2026
Jahr
Abstract
The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems has transformed health information seeking, raising questions about their role as intermediaries in non-professional health self-consultation. This study compares Google Search and ChatGPT as paradigmatic models of algorithmic mediation of health information, focusing on accuracy, biases, information quality and potential harms. A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR framework. Empirical studies published between 2023 and 2025 were retrieved from PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. After screening and eligibility assessment, 63 original empirical studies were included. The results indicate that ChatGPT consistently outperforms Google Search in terms of factual accuracy and information quality, achieving moderate to high DISCERN scores (4–5 out of 5) and showing moderate to strong correlations with expert clinical evaluations. Users also tend to value ChatGPT responses positively due to their clarity, coherence and perceived empathy. However, these advantages coexist with significant structural limitations. Hallucinations are reported in an estimated 31–45% of references, source provenance remains opaque, linguistic complexity is high, and actionability is limited, with only around 40% of responses providing clearly actionable guidance. In contrast, Google Search offers greater source traceability and verifiability, but at the cost of fragmented information and higher exposure to commercial content. The review identifies critical research gaps related to behavioural impacts, critical health literacy, equity of access, professional integration and vulnerable contexts. Overall, the findings highlight the need for hybrid human–AI models, professional mediation and critical AI literacy to ensure safe, equitable and trustworthy use of generative AI in public health communication.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.469 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.358 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.803 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.781 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.542 Zit.