United States Version Research Articles

Google Gemini and Bard artificial intelligence chatbot performance in ophthalmology knowledge assessment.

With the popularization of ChatGPT (Open AI, San Francisco, California, United States) in recent months, understanding the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots in a medical context is important. Our study aims to evaluate Google Gemini and Bard's (Google, Mountain View, California, United States) knowledge in ophthalmology. In this study, we evaluated Google Gemini and Bard's performance on EyeQuiz, a platform containing ophthalmology board certification examination practice questions, when used from the United States (US). Accuracy, response length, response time, and provision of explanations were evaluated. Subspecialty-specific performance was noted. A secondary analysis was conducted using Bard from Vietnam, and Gemini from Vietnam, Brazil, and the Netherlands. Overall, Google Gemini and Bard both had accuracies of 71% across 150 text-based multiple-choice questions. The secondary analysis revealed an accuracy of 67% using Bard from Vietnam, with 32 questions (21%) answered differently than when using Bard from the US. Moreover, the Vietnam version of Gemini achieved an accuracy of 74%, with 23 (15%) answered differently than the US version of Gemini. While the Brazil (68%) and Netherlands (65%) versions of Gemini performed slightly worse than the US version, differences in performance across the various country-specific versions of Bard and Gemini were not statistically significant. Google Gemini and Bard had an acceptable performance in responding to ophthalmology board examination practice questions. Subtle variability was noted in the performance of the chatbots across different countries. The chatbots also tended to provide a confident explanation even when providing an incorrect answer.

Implementation of a virtual dispensing simulator to support US pharmacy education

IntroductionA key element for pharmacy practice defined by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) is medication use systems management. A web-based community pharmacy simulation originally created for Australian pharmacy students was adapted for pharmacy students in the United States (US). The objective of this study was to collaboratively adapt an existing international simulation program for utility in the US and measure student perceptions of a web-based community pharmacy simulation program in three US schools of pharmacy. MethodsAn Australian development team in collaboration with US pharmacy school faculty modified the existing MyDispense software to create a virtual environment that accurately represented US community pharmacy practice. Students at three US schools of pharmacy used the newly adapted version of MyDispense and were surveyed on their prior experience in community pharmacy and their perceptions of MyDispense as a learning tool. ResultsOverall 241 (44%) students completed the satisfaction survey. Approximately 40% of these students worked in a community pharmacy before starting pharmacy school. Most students agreed or strongly agreed that MyDispense was straightforward to learn (76%), was more realistic than addressing similar paper cases (73%), and offered a learning opportunity to safely make errors (84%). Qualitative thematic analysis revealed that MyDispense allowed students to practice how to gather patient information and ask appropriate questions, counsel patients, and practice the dispensing process. Discussion and conclusionsResponse to the US version of My Dispense is positive and proves to be a viable option for introducing and reinforcing community pharmacy practice skills to students during in their pharmacy education

How Comparable are Different Measures of Self-Rated Health? Evidence from Five European Countries

Self-rated health (SRH) is a common health measurement in international research. Yet different versions of this item are often applied. This study compares the US (United States) version (from excellent to poor) and the EU (European) version (from very good to very bad) of SRH, and examines differences in their associations with demographic and objective health variables. Data were drawn from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), comprising information from 11,622 respondents aged 50 years and over in five countries. Respondents were presented with both the EU and US versions. Information was collected on basic demographics and health variables including chronic diseases, symptoms, functional limitations and depression. Firstly, the distribution of each version of the SRH item was assessed, and both relative and literal concordance was examined. Subsequently, multivariate regression analysis was used to assess differences in the associations of both items with demographic and health indicators. The US version has a more symmetric distribution and smaller variance than the EU version. Although the EU version discriminates better at the negative end, the US version shows better discrimination at the negative end of the scale. 69% of respondents provided literally concordant answers, while only about one third provided relatively concordant answers. Overall, however, less than 10% of respondents were discordant in either sense. Furthermore, the two versions were strongly correlated (polychoric correlation