Assessment of the efficacy of ChatGPT responses to bacterial species-specific questions in microbiology.

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
Full text 1,885 characters · extracted from oa-html · 4 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background: ChatGPT, an OpenAI chatbot, serves as a valuable tool in the present for learning and Education. It also offers information on microbiology as popularity grows among students. However, assessing the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses is essential due to the potential for "hallucinations" in large-language-models (LLMs).

Objectives

This study focused on evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT’s responses in general questions on bacterial species and to assess whether the responses included key microbiological terms typically expected in academic or examination settings. Methodology: Questions were designed to reflect interactions at three language proficiency levels including low, moderate and high. A clinical microbiologist finalized a list of 15 bacterial species, each with 18 specific questions of both local and international relevance. These questions were then prompted to ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.1 mini models, simulating real user interactions. Responses were evaluated using a microbiology reference guide and categorized as accurate, mixed/incomplete, or inaccurate.

Results

Results revealed average scores of 1.5%, 58.1%, 40.4% and 0.5%, 43.2%, 56.3% for inaccurate, mixed/incomplete and accurate answers for 3.5 and 4.1 mini models respectively. While high proficiency demonstrated a higher percentage of accurate responses, all other results were either mixed/incomplete, or inaccurate.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that precise questions yielded more accurate responses, while imprecise questions often led to partially correct responses. Notably, ChatGPT 4.1 mini gave clearer and more reliable answers than ChatGPT 3.5. The study emphasizes the influence of question formulation on response accuracy, recommending further research to explore more advanced LLMs like ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-o3 models. - Received: - Version Posted:

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-html

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-26T02:00:01.498150+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0