@article{sallam_chatgpt_2023,
	title = {{ChatGPT} {Output} {Regarding} {Compulsory} {Vaccination} and {COVID}-19 {Vaccine} {Conspiracy}: {A} {Descriptive} {Study} at the {Outset} of a {Paradigm} {Shift} in {Online} {Search} for {Information}.},
	volume = {15},
	issn = {2168-8184, 2168-8184},
	url = {https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/chatgpt-output-regarding-compulsory-vaccination/docview/2779348465/se-2?accountid=14542},
	doi = {10.7759/cureus.35029},
	abstract = {BACKGROUNDBeing on the verge of a revolutionary approach to gathering information, ChatGPT (an artificial intelligence (AI)-based language model developed by OpenAI, and capable of producing human-like text) could be the prime motive of a paradigm shift on how humans will acquire information. Despite the concerns related to the use of such a promising tool in relation to the future of the quality of education, this technology will soon be incorporated into web search engines mandating the need to evaluate the output of such a tool. Previous studies showed that dependence on some sources of online information (e.g., social media platforms) was associated with higher rates of vaccination hesitancy. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to describe the output of ChatGPT regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine conspiracy beliefs. and compulsory vaccination.METHODSThe current descriptive study was conducted on January 14, 2023 using the ChatGPT from OpenAI (OpenAI, L.L.C., San Francisco, CA, USA). The output was evaluated by two authors and the degree of agreement regarding the correctness, clarity, conciseness, and bias was evaluated using Cohen's kappa.RESULTSThe ChatGPT responses were dismissive of conspiratorial ideas about severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) origins labeling it as non-credible and lacking scientific evidence. Additionally, ChatGPT responses were totally against COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy statements. Regarding compulsory vaccination, ChatGPT responses were neutral citing the following as advantages of this strategy: protecting public health, maintaining herd immunity, reducing the spread of disease, cost-effectiveness, and legal obligation, and on the other hand, it cited the following as disadvantages of compulsory vaccination: ethical and legal concerns, mistrust and resistance, logistical challenges, and limited resources and knowledge.CONCLUSIONSThe current study showed that ChatGPT could be a source of information to challenge COVID-19 vaccine conspiracies. For compulsory vaccination, ChatGPT resonated with the divided opinion in the scientific community toward such a strategy; nevertheless, it detailed the pros and cons of this approach. As it currently stands, the judicious use of ChatGPT could be utilized as a user-friendly source of COVID-19 vaccine information that could challenge conspiracy ideas with clear, concise, and non-biased content. However, ChatGPT content cannot be used as an alternative to the original reliable sources of vaccine information (e.g., the World Health Organization [WHO] and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]).},
	language = {English},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Cureus},
	author = {Sallam, Malik and Salim, Nesreen A and Al-Tammemi, Ala'a B and Barakat, Muna and Fayyad, Diaa and Hallit, Souheil and Harapan, Harapan and Hallit, Rabih and Mahafzah, Azmi},
	month = feb,
	year = {2023},
	keywords = {artificial intelligence in medicine, Bias, Conspiracy, Consumer health information, Coronaviruses, COVID-19, covid-19 vaccine, COVID-19 vaccines, False information, Immunization, machine learning, mandatory vaccination, Medical Sciences, Search engines, United States--US, vaccine promotion},
	pages = {1},
	annote = {Copyright - Copyright ©  2023, Sallam et al. This work is published under  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”).  Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.},
	annote = {Fecha de creación - 2023-02-23},
	annote = {Fecha de revisión - 2023-02-27},
	annote = {SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - United States--US},
	annote = {SuppNotes - Conflict of Interest: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Cited By: Nature. 2023 Jan;613(7944):423 [36635510] CMAJ. 2021 Jul 19;193(28):E1089 [34281966] Nat Med. 2020 Apr;26(4):450-452 [32284615] Exp Mol Med. 2021 Apr;53(4):537-547 [33864026] J Comput Soc Sci. 2020;3(2):279-317 [33134595] Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jan 19;113(3):554-9 [26729863] JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2241-2242 [32374357] Arch Public Health. 2022 Aug 24;80(1):197 [35999620] Lancet Public Health. 2022 Jan;7(1):e15-e22 [34914925] Public Health Ethics. 2021 Dec 15;15(1):74-86 [35702643] Sci Rep. 2022 Aug 11;12(1):13681 [35953500] Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Mar 09;19(6): [35328892] BMC Public Health. 2021 Jun 24;21(1):1205 [34162364] J Multidiscip Healthc. 2022 Jan 11;15:21-45 [35046661] Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Nov 22;119(47):e2214427119 [36355862] J Hosp Infect. 2017 Jul;96(3):268-275 [28283372] Soc Sci Med. 2019 Nov;240:112552 [31561111] Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jan 16;18(2): [33467179] Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Nov 08;19(22): [36429342] J Public Health Policy. 2020 Dec;41(4):410-420 [32826935] Curr Opin Pediatr. 2017 Oct;29(5):606-615 [28700416] Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Nov;510:421-422 [32771485] Cureus. 2022 Apr 29;14(4):e24601 [35664409] Papillomavirus Res. 2016 Dec;2:167-172 [29074176] J Med Ethics. 2023 Mar;49(3):211-220 [35636917] Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Aug 19;10(8): [36016243] JAMA. 2021 Apr 20;325(15):1503-1504 [33720271] Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7820):262-267 [32512578] Front Psychol. 2021 Apr 16;12:646394 [33935904] Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 18;11:565128 [33071892] Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1212-1217 [32546823] Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 29;18(15): [34360345] Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Feb 16;9(2): [33669441] PLoS One. 2020 Dec 3;15(12):e0243264 [33270783] Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Jun 03;9(6): [34204971] Ther Deliv. 2022 Mar;13(3):187-203 [35195017] Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Jul 27;10(8): [35893839] Health Educ Res. 2023 Jan 20;38(1):95-105 [36564938] Nature. 2022 Dec 9;: [36494443] Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2022 Apr 28;14:293-307 [35509962] Cell. 2021 Sep 16;184(19):4848-4856 [34480864] Vaccine. 2016 Mar 29;34(14):1712-8 [26899374] Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Jan 12;9(1): [33445581] JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2243-2244 [32374358] J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 6;22(5):e19458 [32352383] Vaccine. 2022 Mar 18;40(13):2114-2121 [35153088] PLoS One. 2022 Oct 26;17(10):e0276082 [36288357] Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2021 Nov;2:100142 [34027509] NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Jun 19;3:86 [32577533] J Pediatr. 2021 Apr;231:10-16 [33484698] BMJ. 2021 Nov 2;375:n2670 [34728499] Bull World Health Organ. 2021 Jun 01;99(6):455-463A [34108756] Soc Sci Med. 2022 May;301:114912 [35354105] JMIR Med Educ. 2022 Jun 7;8(2):e35587 [35671077] Vacunas. 2021 May-Aug;22(2):93-97 [33727904] Front Public Health. 2022 May 11;10:897526 [35646772] J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2023;20:1 [36627845] Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):505-507 [32102621] Heliyon. 2021 May 11;7(5):e07014 [34027198] Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 27;19(9): [35564714] NPJ Digit Med. 2022 Dec 28;5(1):197 [36577851] Infect Dis Now. 2021 Nov;51(8):647-653 [34492344] Vaccine. 2021 Feb 5;39(6):901-914 [33451776] Nature. 2022 Dec 8;: [36481949] Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Aug 10;10(8): [36016179] Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Sep 23;9(10): [34696167] Nurse Educ Pract. 2023 Jan;66:103537 [36549229]},
	annote = {Última actualización - 2023-02-27},
	annote = {Última actualización - 2023-03-08},
	file = {PubMed Central Full Text PDF:files/8585/Sallam et al. - ChatGPT Output Regarding Compulsory Vaccination an.pdf:application/pdf},
}

{"_id":"9MjgqdabwQrRaJyrt","bibbaseid":"sallam-salim-altammemi-barakat-fayyad-hallit-harapan-hallit-etal-chatgptoutputregardingcompulsoryvaccinationandcovid19vaccineconspiracyadescriptivestudyattheoutsetofaparadigmshiftinonlinesearchforinformation-2023","author_short":["Sallam, M.","Salim, N. A","Al-Tammemi, A. B","Barakat, M.","Fayyad, D.","Hallit, S.","Harapan, H.","Hallit, R.","Mahafzah, A."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"ChatGPT Output Regarding Compulsory Vaccination and COVID-19 Vaccine Conspiracy: A Descriptive Study at the Outset of a Paradigm Shift in Online Search for Information.","volume":"15","issn":"2168-8184, 2168-8184","url":"https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/chatgpt-output-regarding-compulsory-vaccination/docview/2779348465/se-2?accountid=14542","doi":"10.7759/cureus.35029","abstract":"BACKGROUNDBeing on the verge of a revolutionary approach to gathering information, ChatGPT (an artificial intelligence (AI)-based language model developed by OpenAI, and capable of producing human-like text) could be the prime motive of a paradigm shift on how humans will acquire information. Despite the concerns related to the use of such a promising tool in relation to the future of the quality of education, this technology will soon be incorporated into web search engines mandating the need to evaluate the output of such a tool. Previous studies showed that dependence on some sources of online information (e.g., social media platforms) was associated with higher rates of vaccination hesitancy. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to describe the output of ChatGPT regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine conspiracy beliefs. and compulsory vaccination.METHODSThe current descriptive study was conducted on January 14, 2023 using the ChatGPT from OpenAI (OpenAI, L.L.C., San Francisco, CA, USA). The output was evaluated by two authors and the degree of agreement regarding the correctness, clarity, conciseness, and bias was evaluated using Cohen's kappa.RESULTSThe ChatGPT responses were dismissive of conspiratorial ideas about severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) origins labeling it as non-credible and lacking scientific evidence. Additionally, ChatGPT responses were totally against COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy statements. Regarding compulsory vaccination, ChatGPT responses were neutral citing the following as advantages of this strategy: protecting public health, maintaining herd immunity, reducing the spread of disease, cost-effectiveness, and legal obligation, and on the other hand, it cited the following as disadvantages of compulsory vaccination: ethical and legal concerns, mistrust and resistance, logistical challenges, and limited resources and knowledge.CONCLUSIONSThe current study showed that ChatGPT could be a source of information to challenge COVID-19 vaccine conspiracies. For compulsory vaccination, ChatGPT resonated with the divided opinion in the scientific community toward such a strategy; nevertheless, it detailed the pros and cons of this approach. As it currently stands, the judicious use of ChatGPT could be utilized as a user-friendly source of COVID-19 vaccine information that could challenge conspiracy ideas with clear, concise, and non-biased content. However, ChatGPT content cannot be used as an alternative to the original reliable sources of vaccine information (e.g., the World Health Organization [WHO] and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]).","language":"English","number":"2","journal":"Cureus","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Sallam"],"firstnames":["Malik"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Salim"],"firstnames":["Nesreen","A"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Al-Tammemi"],"firstnames":["Ala'a","B"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Barakat"],"firstnames":["Muna"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Fayyad"],"firstnames":["Diaa"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Hallit"],"firstnames":["Souheil"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Harapan"],"firstnames":["Harapan"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Hallit"],"firstnames":["Rabih"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Mahafzah"],"firstnames":["Azmi"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"February","year":"2023","keywords":"artificial intelligence in medicine, Bias, Conspiracy, Consumer health information, Coronaviruses, COVID-19, covid-19 vaccine, COVID-19 vaccines, False information, Immunization, machine learning, mandatory vaccination, Medical Sciences, Search engines, United States–US, vaccine promotion","pages":"1","annote":"Última actualización - 2023-03-08","file":"PubMed Central Full Text PDF:files/8585/Sallam et al. - ChatGPT Output Regarding Compulsory Vaccination an.pdf:application/pdf","bibtex":"@article{sallam_chatgpt_2023,\n\ttitle = {{ChatGPT} {Output} {Regarding} {Compulsory} {Vaccination} and {COVID}-19 {Vaccine} {Conspiracy}: {A} {Descriptive} {Study} at the {Outset} of a {Paradigm} {Shift} in {Online} {Search} for {Information}.},\n\tvolume = {15},\n\tissn = {2168-8184, 2168-8184},\n\turl = {https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/chatgpt-output-regarding-compulsory-vaccination/docview/2779348465/se-2?accountid=14542},\n\tdoi = {10.7759/cureus.35029},\n\tabstract = {BACKGROUNDBeing on the verge of a revolutionary approach to gathering information, ChatGPT (an artificial intelligence (AI)-based language model developed by OpenAI, and capable of producing human-like text) could be the prime motive of a paradigm shift on how humans will acquire information. Despite the concerns related to the use of such a promising tool in relation to the future of the quality of education, this technology will soon be incorporated into web search engines mandating the need to evaluate the output of such a tool. Previous studies showed that dependence on some sources of online information (e.g., social media platforms) was associated with higher rates of vaccination hesitancy. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to describe the output of ChatGPT regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine conspiracy beliefs. and compulsory vaccination.METHODSThe current descriptive study was conducted on January 14, 2023 using the ChatGPT from OpenAI (OpenAI, L.L.C., San Francisco, CA, USA). The output was evaluated by two authors and the degree of agreement regarding the correctness, clarity, conciseness, and bias was evaluated using Cohen's kappa.RESULTSThe ChatGPT responses were dismissive of conspiratorial ideas about severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) origins labeling it as non-credible and lacking scientific evidence. Additionally, ChatGPT responses were totally against COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy statements. Regarding compulsory vaccination, ChatGPT responses were neutral citing the following as advantages of this strategy: protecting public health, maintaining herd immunity, reducing the spread of disease, cost-effectiveness, and legal obligation, and on the other hand, it cited the following as disadvantages of compulsory vaccination: ethical and legal concerns, mistrust and resistance, logistical challenges, and limited resources and knowledge.CONCLUSIONSThe current study showed that ChatGPT could be a source of information to challenge COVID-19 vaccine conspiracies. For compulsory vaccination, ChatGPT resonated with the divided opinion in the scientific community toward such a strategy; nevertheless, it detailed the pros and cons of this approach. As it currently stands, the judicious use of ChatGPT could be utilized as a user-friendly source of COVID-19 vaccine information that could challenge conspiracy ideas with clear, concise, and non-biased content. However, ChatGPT content cannot be used as an alternative to the original reliable sources of vaccine information (e.g., the World Health Organization [WHO] and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]).},\n\tlanguage = {English},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\tjournal = {Cureus},\n\tauthor = {Sallam, Malik and Salim, Nesreen A and Al-Tammemi, Ala'a B and Barakat, Muna and Fayyad, Diaa and Hallit, Souheil and Harapan, Harapan and Hallit, Rabih and Mahafzah, Azmi},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2023},\n\tkeywords = {artificial intelligence in medicine, Bias, Conspiracy, Consumer health information, Coronaviruses, COVID-19, covid-19 vaccine, COVID-19 vaccines, False information, Immunization, machine learning, mandatory vaccination, Medical Sciences, Search engines, United States--US, vaccine promotion},\n\tpages = {1},\n\tannote = {Copyright - Copyright ©  2023, Sallam et al. This work is published under  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”).  Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.},\n\tannote = {Fecha de creación - 2023-02-23},\n\tannote = {Fecha de revisión - 2023-02-27},\n\tannote = {SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - United States--US},\n\tannote = {SuppNotes - Conflict of Interest: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Cited By: Nature. 2023 Jan;613(7944):423 [36635510] CMAJ. 2021 Jul 19;193(28):E1089 [34281966] Nat Med. 2020 Apr;26(4):450-452 [32284615] Exp Mol Med. 2021 Apr;53(4):537-547 [33864026] J Comput Soc Sci. 2020;3(2):279-317 [33134595] Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jan 19;113(3):554-9 [26729863] JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2241-2242 [32374357] Arch Public Health. 2022 Aug 24;80(1):197 [35999620] Lancet Public Health. 2022 Jan;7(1):e15-e22 [34914925] Public Health Ethics. 2021 Dec 15;15(1):74-86 [35702643] Sci Rep. 2022 Aug 11;12(1):13681 [35953500] Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Mar 09;19(6): [35328892] BMC Public Health. 2021 Jun 24;21(1):1205 [34162364] J Multidiscip Healthc. 2022 Jan 11;15:21-45 [35046661] Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Nov 22;119(47):e2214427119 [36355862] J Hosp Infect. 2017 Jul;96(3):268-275 [28283372] Soc Sci Med. 2019 Nov;240:112552 [31561111] Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jan 16;18(2): [33467179] Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Nov 08;19(22): [36429342] J Public Health Policy. 2020 Dec;41(4):410-420 [32826935] Curr Opin Pediatr. 2017 Oct;29(5):606-615 [28700416] Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Nov;510:421-422 [32771485] Cureus. 2022 Apr 29;14(4):e24601 [35664409] Papillomavirus Res. 2016 Dec;2:167-172 [29074176] J Med Ethics. 2023 Mar;49(3):211-220 [35636917] Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Aug 19;10(8): [36016243] JAMA. 2021 Apr 20;325(15):1503-1504 [33720271] Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7820):262-267 [32512578] Front Psychol. 2021 Apr 16;12:646394 [33935904] Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 18;11:565128 [33071892] Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1212-1217 [32546823] Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 29;18(15): [34360345] Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Feb 16;9(2): [33669441] PLoS One. 2020 Dec 3;15(12):e0243264 [33270783] Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Jun 03;9(6): [34204971] Ther Deliv. 2022 Mar;13(3):187-203 [35195017] Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Jul 27;10(8): [35893839] Health Educ Res. 2023 Jan 20;38(1):95-105 [36564938] Nature. 2022 Dec 9;: [36494443] Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2022 Apr 28;14:293-307 [35509962] Cell. 2021 Sep 16;184(19):4848-4856 [34480864] Vaccine. 2016 Mar 29;34(14):1712-8 [26899374] Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Jan 12;9(1): [33445581] JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2243-2244 [32374358] J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 6;22(5):e19458 [32352383] Vaccine. 2022 Mar 18;40(13):2114-2121 [35153088] PLoS One. 2022 Oct 26;17(10):e0276082 [36288357] Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2021 Nov;2:100142 [34027509] NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Jun 19;3:86 [32577533] J Pediatr. 2021 Apr;231:10-16 [33484698] BMJ. 2021 Nov 2;375:n2670 [34728499] Bull World Health Organ. 2021 Jun 01;99(6):455-463A [34108756] Soc Sci Med. 2022 May;301:114912 [35354105] JMIR Med Educ. 2022 Jun 7;8(2):e35587 [35671077] Vacunas. 2021 May-Aug;22(2):93-97 [33727904] Front Public Health. 2022 May 11;10:897526 [35646772] J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2023;20:1 [36627845] Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):505-507 [32102621] Heliyon. 2021 May 11;7(5):e07014 [34027198] Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 27;19(9): [35564714] NPJ Digit Med. 2022 Dec 28;5(1):197 [36577851] Infect Dis Now. 2021 Nov;51(8):647-653 [34492344] Vaccine. 2021 Feb 5;39(6):901-914 [33451776] Nature. 2022 Dec 8;: [36481949] Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Aug 10;10(8): [36016179] Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Sep 23;9(10): [34696167] Nurse Educ Pract. 2023 Jan;66:103537 [36549229]},\n\tannote = {Última actualización - 2023-02-27},\n\tannote = {Última actualización - 2023-03-08},\n\tfile = {PubMed Central Full Text PDF:files/8585/Sallam et al. - ChatGPT Output Regarding Compulsory Vaccination an.pdf:application/pdf},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Sallam, M.","Salim, N. A","Al-Tammemi, A. B","Barakat, M.","Fayyad, D.","Hallit, S.","Harapan, H.","Hallit, R.","Mahafzah, A."],"key":"sallam_chatgpt_2023","id":"sallam_chatgpt_2023","bibbaseid":"sallam-salim-altammemi-barakat-fayyad-hallit-harapan-hallit-etal-chatgptoutputregardingcompulsoryvaccinationandcovid19vaccineconspiracyadescriptivestudyattheoutsetofaparadigmshiftinonlinesearchforinformation-2023","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/chatgpt-output-regarding-compulsory-vaccination/docview/2779348465/se-2?accountid=14542"},"keyword":["artificial intelligence in medicine","Bias","Conspiracy","Consumer health information","Coronaviruses","COVID-19","covid-19 vaccine","COVID-19 vaccines","False information","Immunization","machine learning","mandatory vaccination","Medical Sciences","Search engines","United States–US","vaccine promotion"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/network/files/22WYpzbBvi3hDHX7Y","dataSources":["cYu6uhMkeFHgRrEty","hLMh7bwHyFsPNWAEL","LKW3iRvnztCpLNTW7","TLD9JxqHfSQQ4r268","X9BvByJrC3kGJexn8","iovNvcnNYDGJcuMq2","NjZJ5ZmWhTtMZBfje"],"keywords":["artificial intelligence in medicine","bias","conspiracy","consumer health information","coronaviruses","covid-19","covid-19 vaccine","covid-19 vaccines","false information","immunization","machine learning","mandatory vaccination","medical sciences","search engines","united states–us","vaccine promotion"],"search_terms":["chatgpt","output","regarding","compulsory","vaccination","covid","vaccine","conspiracy","descriptive","study","outset","paradigm","shift","online","search","information","sallam","salim","al-tammemi","barakat","fayyad","hallit","harapan","hallit","mahafzah"],"title":"ChatGPT Output Regarding Compulsory Vaccination and COVID-19 Vaccine Conspiracy: A Descriptive Study at the Outset of a Paradigm Shift in Online Search for Information.","year":2023}