Actionable companion · Assessment & reasoning

From AI evidence to responsible practice: Evaluating AI performance in infectious disease education: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT, Google Bard, Perplexity AI, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta AI

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not findings or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.

Evidence and context

Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Age / stage not established. Verify the participants, intervention and comparator before applying this study in a new setting.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Background This study systematically evaluates and compares the performance of ChatGPT 3. 5, Google Bard (Gemini), Perplexity AI, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta AI in responding to infectious disease-related multiple-choice questions (MCQs). Methods A systematic comparative study was conducted using 20 infectious disease case studies sourced from Infectious Diseases: A Case Study Approach by Jonathan C. Cho. Each case study included 7–10 MCQs, resulting in a total of 160 questions. AI platforms were provided with standardized prompts containing the case study text and MCQs without additional context. Their responses were evaluated against a reference answer key from the textbook. Accuracy was measured by the percentage of correct responses, and consistency was assessed by submitting identical prompts 24 h apart. Results ChatGPT 3.5 achieved the highest numerical accuracy (65.6%), followed by Perplexity AI (63.2%), Microsoft Copilot (60.9%), Meta AI (60.8%), and Google Bard (58.8%). AI models performed best in symptom identification (76.5%) and worst in therapy-related questions (57.1%). ChatGPT 3.5 demonstrated strong diagnostic accuracy (79.1%) but had a significant drop in antimicrobial treatment recommendations (56.6%). Google Bard performed inconsistently in microorganism identification (61.9%) and preventive therapy (62.5%). Microsoft Copilot exhibited the most stable responses across repeated testing, while ChatGPT 3.5 showed a 7.5% accuracy decline. Perplexity AI and Meta AI struggled with individualized treatment recommendations, showing variability in drug selection and dosing adjustments. AI-generated responses were found to change over time, with some models giving different antimicrobial recommendations for the same case scenario upon repeated testing. Conclusion AI platforms offer potential in infectious disease education but demonstrate limitations in pharmacotherapy decision-making, particularly in antimicrobial selection and dosing accuracy. ChatGPT 3.5 performed best but lacked response stability, while Microsoft Copilot showed greater consistency but lacked nuanced therapeutic reasoning. Further research is needed to improve AI-driven decision support systems for medical education and clinical applications through clinical trials, evaluation of real-world patient data, and assessment of long-term stability.

A 90-day district pilot

1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
2. Days 16–30 · Design. Have a subject specialist reproduce a small set of the paper’s tool-evaluation tasks using the documented model and prompt conditions. Keep this as a tool-reliability exercise until a separate learner study is designed. Require learners to attempt equivalent tasks independently before any AI comparison. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Report tool accuracy and error severity separately from learner outcomes. Measure learner understanding and transfer with unaided parallel tasks; model examination scores are not evidence of improved student learning. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Abdulaziz Ibrahim Alzarea; Azfar Athar Ishaqui; Muhammad Bilal Maqsood; Abdullah Salah Alanazi; Aseel Awad Alsaidan; Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi; Narendar Kumar; Muhammad Imran; Sultan M. Alshahrani; Hassan H. Alhassan; Sami I. Alzarea; Omar Awad Alsaidan. Evaluating AI performance in infectious disease education: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT, Google Bard, Perplexity AI, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta AI. Frontiers in Medicine (2025-10-13). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1679153

Companion prepared 2026-11-01. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.