The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ChatGPT for Tinnitus Information and Support: Response Accuracy and Retest after Three and Six Months
Published version of a preprint
Abstract
Testing of ChatGPT has recently been performed over a diverse range of topics. However, most of these assessments have been based on broad domains of knowledge. Here, we test ChatGPT’s knowledge of tinnitus, an important but specialized aspect of audiology and otolaryngology. Testing involved evaluating ChatGPT’s answers to a defined set of 10 questions on tinnitus. Furthermore, given the technology is advancing quickly, we re-evaluated the responses to the same 10 questions 3 and 6 months later. The accuracy of the responses was rated by 6 experts (the authors) using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Most of ChatGPT’s responses were rated as satisfactory or better. However, we did detect a few instances where the responses were not accurate and might be considered somewhat misleading. Over the first 3 months, the ratings generally improved, but there was no more significant improvement at 6 months. In our judgment, ChatGPT provided unexpectedly good responses, given that the questions were quite specific. Although no potentially harmful errors were identified, some mistakes could be seen as somewhat misleading. ChatGPT shows great potential if further developed by experts in specific areas, but for now, it is not yet ready for serious application.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures

Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“These findings, across domains including medical education (Cheng et al., 2025), health sciences (Jedrzejczak et al., 2024), and chemistry education (Ruff et al., 2024), suggest that DOI hallucination is systematic rather than incidental.”
From Geographic Variation in LLM DOI Fabrication: Cross-Country Analysis of Citation Accuracy Across Four Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Jedrzejczak et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Brief Overview of ChatGPT: The History, Status Quo and Potential Future Development
Wu, T., He, S., Liu, J., Sun, S., Liu, K., Han, Q.-L., & Tang, Y. (2023) · IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica · doi:10.1109/jas.2023.123618 · Cited by 1,452
The Tinnitus Functional Index: Development of a New Clinical Measure for Chronic, Intrusive Tinnitus
Meikle, M. B., Henry, J. A., Griest, S. E., Stewart, B. J., Abrams, H. B., McArdle, R., Myers, P. J., Newman, C. W., Sandridge, S., Turk, D. C., et al. (2012) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31822f67c0 · Cited by 792
Deiana, G., Dettori, M., Arghittu, A., Azara, A., Gabutti, G., & Castiglia, P. (2023) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines11071217 · Cited by 168
McMahon, H. V., & McMahon, B. D. (2024) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2024.1287186 · Cited by 34
Research works printed but not linked: 41
- Trust, 2023, ChatGPT: Challenges, Opportunities, and Implications for Teacher Education, Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ., 23, 1
- Yanagita, 2023, Accuracy of ChatGPT on Medical Questions in the National Medical Licensing Examination in Japan: Evaluation Study, JMIR Form. Res., 7, e48023, 10.2196/48023 · DOI
- Gobira, 2023, Performance of ChatGPT-4 in answering questions from the Brazilian National Examination for Medical Degree Revalidation, Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras., 69, e20230848, 10.1590/1806-9282.20230848 · DOI
- Luykx, 2023, The performance of ChatGPT in generating answers to clinical questions in psychiatry: A two-layer assessment, World Psychiatry, 22, 479, 10.1002/wps.21145 · DOI
- Iarossi, 2023, How good does ChatGPT answer frequently asked questions about haemophilia?, Haemophilia, 29, 1646, 10.1111/hae.14858 · DOI
- Emile, 2023, How appropriate are answers of online chat-based artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) to common questions on colon cancer?, Surgery, 174, 1273, 10.1016/j.surg.2023.06.005 · DOI
- Nielsen, 2023, Validity of the large language model ChatGPT (GPT4) as a patient information source in otolaryngology by a variety of doctors in a tertiary otorhinolaryngology department, Acta Oto-Laryngol., 143, 779, 10.1080/00016489.2023.2254809 · DOI
- Kim, 2023, A Case Report on Ground-Level Alternobaric Vertigo Due to Eustachian Tube Dysfunction With the Assistance of Conversational Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), Cureus, 15, e36830
- Swanepoel, 2023, The rise of AI Chatbots in hearing health care, Heart J., 76, 26
- Langguth, 2013, Tinnitus: Causes and clinical management, Lancet Neurol., 12, 920, 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70160-1 · DOI
- Jackson, 2019, Objective Measures of Tinnitus: A Systematic Review, Otol. Neurotol., 40, 154, 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002116 · DOI
- Henry, 2014, Underlying mechanisms of tinnitus: Review and clinical implications, J. Am. Acad. Audiol., 25, 5, 10.3766/jaaa.25.1.2 · DOI
- Jarach, 2022, Global Prevalence and Incidence of Tinnitus, JAMA Neurol., 79, 888, 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.2189 · DOI
- Davis, 2019, Hearing loss: Rising prevalence and impact, Bull. World Health Organ., 97, 646, 10.2471/BLT.19.224683 · DOI
- AStohler, 2019, A study on the epidemiology of tinnitus in the United Kingdom, Clin. Epidemiol., 11, 855, 10.2147/CLEP.S213136 · DOI
- Kutyba, 2022, Self-help interventions chosen by subjects with chronic tinnitus—A retrospective study of clinical patients, Int. J. Audiol., 61, 686, 10.1080/14992027.2021.1964040 · DOI
- Manchaiah, 2022, Online Discussions about Tinnitus: What Can We Learn from Natural Language Processing of Reddit Posts?, Am. J. Audiol., 31, 993, 10.1044/2021_AJA-21-00158 · DOI
- Moons, 2024, What if your patient switches from Dr. Google to Dr. ChatGPT? A vignette-based survey of the trustworthiness, value, and danger of ChatGPT-generated responses to health questions, Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs., 23, 95, 10.1093/eurjcn/zvad038 · DOI
- Jan, 2003, Clinical Evaluation of Tinnitus: A Review, Audiol. Med., 1, 101, 10.1080/16513860301714 · DOI
- Penner, 1988, Audible and annoying spontaneous otoacoustic emissions. A case study, Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg., 114, 150, 10.1001/archotol.1988.01860140048019 · DOI
- Jedrzejczak, W.W., Pilka, E., Ganc, M., Kochanek, K., and Skarzynski, H. (2022). Ultra-High Frequency Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions for Detection of Hearing Loss and Tinnitus. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19. · DOI
- Trevis, 2018, A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological functioning in chronic tinnitus, Clin. Psychol. Rev., 60, 62, 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.12.006 · DOI
- Newman, 1996, Development of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, Arch. Otolaryngol. Neck Surg., 122, 143, 10.1001/archotol.1996.01890140029007 · DOI
- Lee, 2015, Otologic manifestations of acoustic neuroma, Acta Oto-Laryngol., 135, 140, 10.3109/00016489.2014.952334 · DOI
- Milloy, 2017, Auditory Brainstem Responses in Tinnitus: A Review of Who, How, and What?, Front. Aging Neurosci., 9, 237, 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00237 · DOI
- Patil, 2023, Comparative performance of ChatGPT and bard in a text-based radiology knowledge assessmen, Can. Assoc. Radiol. J., 75, 344, 10.1177/08465371231193716 · DOI
- Benjamini, 1995, Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol., 57, 289, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · DOI · Paper page
- Buhr, 2023, ChatGPT Versus Consultants: Blinded Evaluation on Answering Otorhinolaryngology Case–Based Questions, JMIR Med. Educ., 9, e49183, 10.2196/49183 · DOI
- Huang, Y., and Sun, L. (2023). Harnessing the power of chatgpt in fake news: An in-depth exploration in generation, detection and explanation. arXiv.
- Marcrum, S.C., Engelke, M., Goedhart, H., Langguth, B., Schlee, W., Vesala, M., and Simoes, J.P. (2022). The Influence of Diet on Tinnitus Severity: Results of a Large-Scale, Online Survey. Nutrients, 14. · DOI
- Zurek, 1981, Spontaneous narrowband acoustic signals emitted by human ears, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 69, 514, 10.1121/1.385481 · DOI
- Hiller, 1992, A psychometric study of complaints in chronic tinnitus, J. Psychosom. Res., 36, 337, 10.1016/0022-3999(92)90070-I · DOI · Paper page
- Hiller, 1994, Reliability of self-rated tinnitus distress and association with psychological symptom patterns, Br. J. Clin. Psychol., 33, 231, 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01117.x · DOI
- Goddard, 2023, Hallucinations in ChatGPT: A Cautionary Tale for Biomedical Researchers, Am. J. Med., 136, 1059, 10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.06.012 · DOI
- Sanfins, 2023, Skarzynski Tinnitus Scale: Cultural Adaptation and Validation to Brazilian Portuguese, Int. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol., 27, e400, 10.1055/s-0042-1742351 · DOI
- Halily, 2021, Validation of a Moroccan Arabic Version of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI-M), Otol. Neurotol., 42, e1432, 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003311 · DOI
- Jedrzejczak, W.W., and Kochanek, K. (2023). Comparison of the audiological knowledge of three chatbots: ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Bard. medRxiv. · DOI
- Freire, 2024, ChatGPT performance in prosthodontics: Assessment of accuracy and repeatability in answer generation, J. Prosthet. Dent., 131, 659.e1, 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.018 · DOI
- Lewandowski, M., Łukowicz, P., Świetlik, D., and Barańska-Rybak, W. (2023). An original study of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 Dermatological Knowledge Level based on the Dermatology Specialty Certificate Examinations. Clin. Exp. Dermatol., llad255. · DOI
- Plevris, 2023, Chatbots Put to the Test in Math and Logic Problems: A Comparison and Assessment of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Bard, AI, 4, 949, 10.3390/ai4040048 · DOI
- Rahsepar, 2023, How AI Responds to Common Lung Cancer Questions: ChatGPT versus Google Bard, Radiology, 307, e230922, 10.1148/radiol.230922 · DOI
Cited by
Kim, E., Kipchumba, F., & Min, S. (2025) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications13040049 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Jedrzejczak, W. W., Skarzynski, P. H., Raj-Koziak, D., Sanfins, M. D., Hatzopoulos, S., & Kochanek, K.
- Affiliations
- Department of Experimental Audiology, World Hearing Center, Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, 05-830 Kajetany, Poland
- Department of Teleaudiology and Screening, World Hearing Center, Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, 05-830 Kajetany, Poland
- Tinnitus Department, World Hearing Center, Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, 05-830 Kajetany, Poland
- ENT and Audiology Unit, Department of Neurosciences and Rehabilitation, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy
- ORCID
- Venue
- Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2024-05-07
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 465
- ISSN
- 2076-3425
- PMC
- PMC11118795
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 4
- Language
- en
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.