Unlocking Health Literacy: The Ultimate Guide to Hypertension Education From ChatGPT Versus Google Gemini

Thomas J Lee; Daniel J Campbell; Shriya Patel; Afif Hossain; Navid Radfar; Emaad Siddiqui; Julius M Gardin

doi:10.7759/cureus.59898

Unlocking Health Literacy: The Ultimate Guide to Hypertension Education From ChatGPT Versus Google Gemini

Cureus. 2024 May 8;16(5):e59898. doi: 10.7759/cureus.59898. eCollection 2024 May.

Authors

Thomas J Lee¹, Daniel J Campbell², Shriya Patel¹, Afif Hossain³, Navid Radfar¹, Emaad Siddiqui³, Julius M Gardin³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Medicine, Rutgers University New Jersey Medical School, Newark, USA.
² Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, USA.
³ Department of Cardiology, Rutgers University New Jersey Medical School, Newark, USA.

Abstract

Background Google Gemini (Google, Mountain View, CA) represents the latest advances in the realm of artificial intelligence (AI) and has garnered attention due to its capabilities similar to the increasingly popular ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA). Accurate dissemination of information on common conditions such as hypertension is critical for patient comprehension and management. Despite the ubiquity of AI, comparisons between ChatGPT and Gemini remain unexplored. Methods ChatGPT and Gemini were asked 52 questions derived from the American College of Cardiology's (ACC) frequently asked questions on hypertension, following a specified prompt. Prompts included: no prompting (Form 1), patient-friendly prompting (Form 2), physician-level prompting (Form 3), and prompting for statistics/references (Form 4). Responses were scored as incorrect, partially correct, or correct. Flesch-Kincaid (FK) grade level and word count were recorded. Results Across all forms, scoring frequencies were as follows: 23 (5.5%) incorrect, 162 (38.9%) partially correct, and 231 (55.5%) correct. ChatGPT showed higher rates of partially correct answers than Gemini (p = 0.0346). Physician-level prompts resulted in a higher word count across both platforms (p < 0.001). ChatGPT showed a higher FK grade level (p = 0.033) in physician-friendly prompting. Gemini exhibited a significantly higher mean word count (p < 0.001); however, ChatGPT had a higher FK grade level across all forms (p > 0.001). Conclusion To our knowledge, this study is the first to compare cardiology-related responses from ChatGPT and Gemini, two of the most popular AI chatbots. The grade level for most responses was collegiate level, which was above average for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommendations, but on par with most online medical information. Both chatbots responded with a high degree of accuracy, with inaccuracies being rare. Therefore, it is reasonable that cardiologists suggest either chatbot as a source of supplementary education.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; chatgpt; google gemini; hypertension; patient education.