Abstract
Aim:
This study assesses the reliability of artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) in identifying relevant literature comparing inguinal hernia repair techniques.
Material and Methods:
We used LLM chatbots (Bing Chat AI, ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0, and Gemini) to find comparative studies and randomized controlled trials on inguinal hernia repair techniques. The results were then compared with existing systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses and checked for the authenticity of listed articles.
Results:
LLMs screened 22 studies from 2006 to 2023 across eight journals, while the SRs encompassed a total of 42 studies. Through thorough external validation, 63.6% of the studies (14 out of 22), including 10 identified through Chat GPT 4.0 and 6 via Bing AI (with an overlap of 2 studies between them), were confirmed to be authentic. Conversely, 36.3% (8 out of 22) were revealed as fabrications by Google Gemini (Bard), with two (25.0%) of these fabrications mistakenly linked to valid DOIs. Four (25.6%) of the 14 real studies were acknowledged in the SRs, which represents 18.1% of all LLM-generated studies. LLMs missed a total of 38 (90.5%) of the studies included in the previous SRs, while 10 real studies were found by the LLMs but were not included in the previous SRs. Between those 10 studies, 6 were reviews, and 1 was published after the SRs, leaving a total of three comparative studies missed by the reviews.
Conclusions:
This study reveals the mixed reliability of AI language models in scientific searches. Emphasizing a cautious application of AI in academia and the importance of continuous evaluation of AI tools in scientific investigations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
