Abstract
Objective The optimal timing of umbilical cord clamping in neonatal care has been a subject of debate for decades. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a significant tool for providing medical information. This study aimed to compare the accuracy, reliability, and comprehensiveness of information provided by ChatGPT and Google regarding the effects of cord clamping timing in neonatal care.
Methods A comparative analysis was conducted using ChatGPT-4 and Google Search. The search terms included “cord clamping time,” “early clamping,” “delayed clamping,” and “cord milking.” The first 20 frequently asked questions (FAQs) and their responses from both platforms were recorded and categorized according to the Rothwell classification system. The accuracy and reliability of the answers were assessed using content analysis and statistical comparison.
Results ChatGPT outperformed Google in terms of scientific accuracy, objectivity, and source reliability. ChatGPT provided a higher proportion of responses based on academic and medical sources, particularly in the categories of technical details (40%) and delayed cord clamping benefits (30%). In contrast, Google yielded more information in early cord clamping effects (25%) and cord milking (20%). ChatGPT achieved 80% accuracy in medical information, whereas Google reached only 40%.
Conclusion While both platforms offer valuable information, ChatGPT demonstrated superior accuracy and reliability in neonatal care topics, making it a more suitable tool for healthcare professionals. However, Google remains useful for general information searches. Future studies should explore AI’s potential in clinical decision-support systems.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was exempt from institutional ethics board approval because it did not involve human participants.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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.
Not Applicable
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).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Footnotes
1 Analyzed data
2 Designed study, collected data, wrote the article, wrote and revised article, supervised study
Dr.ramazan_bulbul{at}hotmail.com
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
