Cited by 15Misinformation and Its ImpactsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Evaluating the effectiveness of artificial intelligence‐based tools in detecting and understanding sleep health misinformation: Comparative analysis using Google Bard and OpenAI ChatGPT‐4

Open access
Garbarino, Sergio, Bragazzi, Nicola Luigi·2024·Journal of Sleep Research

Abstract

Summary: This study evaluates the performance of two major artificial intelligence‐based tools (ChatGPT‐4 and Google Bard) in debunking sleep‐related myths. More in detail, the present research assessed 20 sleep misconceptions using a 5‐point Likert scale for falseness and public health significance, comparing responses of artificial intelligence tools with expert opinions. The results indicated that Google Bard correctly identified 19 out of 20 statements as false (95.0% accuracy), not differing from ChatGPT‐4 (85.0% accuracy, Fisher's exact test p = 0.615). Google Bard's ratings of the falseness of the sleep misconceptions averaged 4.25 ± 0.70, showing a moderately negative skewness (−0.42) and kurtosis (−0.83), and suggesting a distribution with fewer extreme values compared with ChatGPT‐4. In assessing public health significance, Google Bard's mean score was 2.4 ± 0.80, with skewness and kurtosis of 0.36 and −0.07, respectively, indicating a more normal distribution compared with ChatGPT‐4. The inter‐rater agreement between Google Bard and sleep experts had an intra‐class correlation coefficient of 0.58 for falseness and 0.69 for public health significance, showing moderate alignment (p = 0.065 and p = 0.014, respectively). Text‐mining analysis revealed Google Bard's focus on practical advice, while ChatGPT‐4 concentrated on theoretical aspects of sleep. The readability analysis suggested Google Bard's responses were more accessible, aligning with 8th‐grade level material, versus ChatGPT‐4's 12th‐grade level complexity. The study demonstrates the potential of artificial intelligence in public health education, especially in sleep health, and underscores the importance of accurate, reliable artificial intelligence‐generated information, calling for further collaboration between artificial intelligence developers, sleep health professionals and educators to enhance the effectiveness of sleep health promotion.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jsr.14210

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garbarino, S., & Bragazzi, N. L.
Affiliations
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
  • University of Parma (IT)
Corresponding author
Bragazzi, Nicola Luigi
Venue
Journal of Sleep Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-04-05
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
e14210-e14210
ISSN
  • 0962-1105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2869
OpenAlex
W4393989759
Cited by
15
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7
FWCI
10.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Sleep Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
ChatGPT-4, Google Bard, large language models, misinformation detection, public health education, readability, text mining, expert validation, sleep health promotion
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Communication, Humans, Sleep, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review