This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
The second one has a sample size of less than thousand people and concludes "Self-diagnosis does not accurately predict influenza seropositivity"
The third one is the only one that has a good set of data in terms of sample size ( 50+ Million ) but concludes "Symptom checkers had deficits in both triage and diagnosis" and that said I have no idea if those websites need some kind of verification as well, so if not someone who's bored could have just added bogus data to that as well.
The first one says
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
The second one has a sample size of less than thousand people and concludes "Self-diagnosis does not accurately predict influenza seropositivity"
The third one is the only one that has a good set of data in terms of sample size ( 50+ Million ) but concludes "Symptom checkers had deficits in both triage and diagnosis" and that said I have no idea if those websites need some kind of verification as well, so if not someone who's bored could have just added bogus data to that as well.
I am not sure what's your point.