ChatGPT for tinnitus information and support: response accuracy and retest after three months

Background ChatGPT – a conversational tool based on artificial intelligence – has recently been tested on a range of topics. However most of the testing has involved 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 months later. Material and method ChatGPT (free version 3.5) was asked 10 questions on tinnitus at two points of time – August 2023 and November 2023. The accuracy of the responses was rated by 6 experts using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. The number of words in each response was also counted, and responses were specifically examined for whether references were provided or whether consultation with a specialist was suggested. Results 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. The responses from ChatGPT were quite long (averaging over 400 words) and they occasionally tended to stray off-topic. No solid references to sources of information were ever supplied, and when references were specifically asked for the sources were artificial. For most responses consultation with a specialist was suggested. It is worth noting that after 3 months the responses generally improved. Conclusions ChatGPT pro vided surprisingly good responses, given that the questions were quite specific. Although no potentially harmful errors were identified, some mistakes could be seen as somewhat misleading. No solid references were ever supplied. ChatGPT shows great potential if further developed by experts in specific areas, but for now it is not yet ready for serious application. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript and supplementary files.