3
In your primary area of expertise, which model has produced the most reliable output in your experience?
Results
(226 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Grok (xAI)user-154906It is the one that have provided the least references hallucinations.
- None has been reliable enough for use in my area of expertiseuser-11803Openevidence
- user-53122I use self coded models in my work
- DeepSeekuser-597773It is highly secured fron cyber attack.
- ChatGPT (OpenAI)user-568782My AI use is depending to the type of work I intend to undertake, suc as text synthesis or resume, and grammar check.
- None has been reliable enough for use in my area of expertiseuser-887652AI is easily fooled and easily influenced. I'm not a fan.
- None has been reliable enough for use in my area of expertiseuser-983379Non of them tested on real data. Just run on retrospective samples
- The models I've used are roughly equivalent in reliabilityuser-441029Like I said in the previous answer: I use AI only to collect primary sources for literature overview on the topic of interest. For that all of them work approximately the same
- Gemini (Google)user-498547I think that Gemini produced a little more reliable output in my experience than ChatGPT
- None has been reliable enough for use in my area of expertiseuser-96711For tough, controversial questions, it is best to know the answer or a good approximation to the answer.
- Gemini (Google)user-460380This model is very concise when it replies. Responses are short and clear.
- ChatGPT (OpenAI)user-267027ChatGPT is the model I use most frequently in my area of expertise. It has consistently provided reliable support for scientific writing, literature exploration, language improvement, and the organisation of ideas. I have not felt the need to use other models because it has met my professional needs. But, I always rely on my own expertise and critical judgement to verify and interpret the information before using it in scientific work .
- ChatGPT (OpenAI)user-301040Though it depend, sometimes Claude produce a better result, es ecially in writing and sometimes ChatGPT is better, especially in developing figures
- Gemini (Google)user-582664The best one, and the one I benefited from the most, is Gemini because it has no limit on the number of images you can download and it's free, unlike other websites.
- DeepSeekuser-759482Seep Seek is an AI made for mathematicians. Statistics starting from study design , sample size, randomization, statistical tests used, results and final conclusion can rewin any study.
- Claude (Anthropic)user-508016Claude is superior for aforementioned tasks
- ChatGPT (OpenAI)user-846951I admittedly haven't tried enough of the other models to confidently say ChatGPT is the best, but it has worked well for me to date.
- DeepSeekuser-890708DeepSeek功能强大，应用广泛。
- None has been reliable enough for use in my area of expertiseuser-378118dido as before
- ChatGPT (OpenAI)user-866433I specifically have used ChatGpt and BlackBox AI, and sometimes balckbox AI also produced better results.
- The models I've used are roughly equivalent in reliabilityuser-749562Not very reliable though. You need to check the work.
- Gemini (Google)user-953899From my experience and consensus of my peers many people agree that Gemini can process large amount of literature, data, and patient information accurately with good reliability and the addition making and judgment based on the information given, Gemini can make better decisions if prompted appropriately for better patient safety and management.
- Claude (Anthropic)user-876636Both Claude & Perplexity - However both hallucinate few articles which is not available in the published literature or mismatch in title or author name
- Gemini (Google)user-139009This keeps my answers consistent throughout the survey and reflects my actual hands-on experience with Google's model in molecular biology and immunology [Nature, 2025].
- I have not used AI in my area of expertiseuser-951744I have used AI mostly to check for errors, readability, and to identify issues with Python code.
- ChatGPT (OpenAI)user-539924ChatGPT is useful because it can sustain long critical discussions in which assumptions can be questioned and corrected.
- ChatGPT (OpenAI)user-814722I mostly use ChatGPT.
- Claude (Anthropic)user-194414I tried a lot and i contrast answers and claude is the more accurate.
- None has been reliable enough for use in my area of expertiseuser-481327Only used for generating foundational work, processing simple tasks or outputs, large amounts of test questions to then review, or broad drafts of correctly formatted text.
- I have not used AI in my area of expertiseuser-228600I only use them for text editing and not sounding like a total d.in review answers
- ChatGPT (OpenAI)user-516400ChatGPT with my own supervision of their output has been the most useful tool in a variety of tasks to refine my english, grammar, spelling and clarity.
- None has been reliable enough for use in my area of expertiseuser-196182They create unexistent citations and extract data from uncertsin sources
- The models I've used are roughly equivalent in reliabilityuser-377267see above
- Gemini (Google)user-762565Because he explains things in a simple, scientific manner.
- Claude (Anthropic)user-234128Claude produces the best code with minimal frequency of errors.
- The models I've used are roughly equivalent in reliabilityuser-365645Many times obtained results are contradictory I found which is violation of fundamental physics
- DeepSeekuser-812675N/A
- ChatGPT (OpenAI)user-395064As above
- ChatGPT (OpenAI)user-432588I only used it for grammar, so I realized it was a great help for that
- None has been reliable enough for use in my area of expertiseuser-490306As I have discussed earlier, that scientific work needs literature based evidence which goes through the process of plagiarism. I have always avoided using any kind of AI assistance.
- The models I've used are roughly equivalent in reliabilityuser-468267Hard to access with sporadic us eof mostly one (Copilot).
- Claude (Anthropic)user-488995IT IS THE BEST RELIABLE AI TOOL
- The models I've used are roughly equivalent in reliabilityuser-852191Consensus Research
Open Evidence - ChatGPT (OpenAI)user-746645In my experience, ChatGPT has been the most useful for literature review, manuscript editing, checking reporting guidelines, and improving scientific English. It also helps me organize ideas and identify potential methodological issues. However, I always verify important medical information and make the final decisions myself.
- Claude (Anthropic)user-851286As far as the design of coding and analysis in ecology is concerned, Claude Code is currently the most suitable option.
- DeepSeekuser-164084DeepSeek is quite good.
It is an open source AI tool.
Although my use of AI is limited and not generally encompassing. My preference is just based on personal idiosyncrasies and may not be based on any technical evaluation of performance. - Copilot (Microsoft)user-756416I believe that, in my field, all of them can be suitable, and the key factor is using the right prompts. However, as mentioned before, for professional work I primarily use Copilot because of the institutional license and the associated privacy and data protection safeguards.
- Claude (Anthropic)user-923069It is good for science.
- Claude (Anthropic)user-616480Claude is by far in advance of Copilot in terms of appropriately nuanced responses.
- The models I've used are roughly equivalent in reliabilityuser-531244Models have different levels of strength in reasoning and recall. Images graphics and videos are often easier to design in Gemini and Chat GPT. More complex content development is often requires a model such as Perplexity.