Objective: This study aims to determine the potential and limitations of artificial intelligence (AI) in this field by comparing the results of ChatGPT-4.5 and experts in the evaluation of YouTube videos intended for older adults. Materials and Methods: A search was conducted on YouTube using the keyword “fall prevention exercises for elderly,” and the 100 most viewed videos were examined. Of these, 64 videos that met the criteria were included in the study. The comprehensiveness, quality [global quality scale (GQS)], and reliability [Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN)] of the videos were evaluated by two independent physiotherapists and ChatGPT-4.5. Agreement between the evaluations was tested using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman analyses. Results: No significant differences were found between ChatGPT-4.5 and human experts in terms of comprehensiveness (p=0.242) and GQS (p=0.083) scores, and a high level of agreement was observed (ICC 0.932 and 0.876, respectively). However, in DISCERN scores, ChatGPT-4.5 awarded significantly higher scores than the human experts (p=0.005), and the level of agreement was determined to be excellent (ICC=0.942). Nevertheless, a wide range of differences (limits of agreement: -4.9 to 7.18) was identified. Conclusion: ChatGPT-4.5 can be used as a reliable assessment tool in determining the comprehensiveness and quality levels of fall prevention exercise videos. However, it was concluded that in reliability scoring, AI should be used under expert supervision.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sözlü et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: