Cited by 51Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence Applications

Comparative analysis of ChatGPT and Gemini (Bard) in medical inquiry: a scoping review

Open access
Fattah, Fattah H., Salih, Abdulwahid M., Salih, Ameer M., Asaad, Saywan K., Ghafour, Abdullah K., Bapir, Rawa, Abdalla, Berun A., Othman, Snur +4 more·2025·Frontiers in Digital Health

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial intelligence and machine learning are popular interconnected technologies. AI chatbots like ChatGPT and Gemini show considerable promise in medical inquiries. This scoping review aims to assess the accuracy and response length (in characters) of ChatGPT and Gemini in medical applications. Methods: The eligible databases were searched to find studies published in English from January 1 to October 20, 2023. The inclusion criteria consisted of studies that focused on using AI in medicine and assessed outcomes based on the accuracy and character count (length) of ChatGPT and Gemini. Data collected from the studies included the first author's name, the country where the study was conducted, the type of study design, publication year, sample size, medical speciality, and the accuracy and response length. Results: The initial search identified 64 papers, with 11 meeting the inclusion criteria, involving 1,177 samples. ChatGPT showed higher accuracy in radiology (87.43% vs. Gemini's 71%) and shorter responses (907 vs. 1,428 characters). Similar trends were noted in other specialties. However, Gemini outperformed ChatGPT in emergency scenarios (87% vs. 77%) and in renal diets with low potassium and high phosphorus (79% vs. 60% and 100% vs. 77%). Statistical analysis confirms that ChatGPT has greater accuracy and shorter responses than Gemini in medical studies, with a p-value of <.001 for both metrics. Conclusion: This Scoping review suggests that ChatGPT may demonstrate higher accuracy and provide shorter responses than Gemini in medical studies.

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 · 10.3389/fdgth.2025.1482712

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • Current research on AI in nursing education is divided and heterogeneous in design, setting, AI tools evaluated, and outcomes.

    “Although the number of works that investigate the topic of AI in education is constantly increasing, the current research is still divided, and the studies are diverse in terms of design, setting, AI tools evaluated, and their outcomes [9].”

    From HOW AI TOOLS (LIKE CHATGPT/GEMINI) AFFECT CRITICAL THINKING IN NURSING STUDENTS. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Results (Characteristics of the included studies; page not specified) show studies across countries and medical specialties, with differing accuracy outcomes. The Discussion also notes variability across specialties. But this review compares ChatGPT and Gemini in medical inquiries; it does not establish that research on AI in nursing education is divided or diverse in study design and AI tools evaluated. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Fattah, F. H., Salih, A. M., Salih, A. M., Asaad, S. K., Ghafour, A. K., Bapir, R., Abdalla, B. A., Othman, S., Ahmed, S. M., Hasan, S. J., Mahmood, Y. M., & Kakamad, F. H.
Affiliations
University of Sulaimani (IQ)
Corresponding author
Kakamad, Fahmi H.
Venue
Frontiers in Digital Health
Published
2025-02-03
Volume
7
Pages
1482712-1482712
ISSN
2673-253X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4407111166
Cited by
50
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 18
FWCI
12.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, AI chatbots, medical question answering, diagnostic accuracy, response length, radiology, emergency medicine, renal diet, artificial intelligence in healthcare

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