The accuracy of artificial intelligence-based virtual assistants in responding to routinely asked questions about orthodontics.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Angle Orthodontist Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.2319/100922-691.1
Anthony Perez-Pino, Sumit Yadav, Madhur Upadhyay, Lauren Cardarelli, Aditya Tadinada
{"title":"The accuracy of artificial intelligence-based virtual assistants in responding to routinely asked questions about orthodontics.","authors":"Anthony Perez-Pino,&nbsp;Sumit Yadav,&nbsp;Madhur Upadhyay,&nbsp;Lauren Cardarelli,&nbsp;Aditya Tadinada","doi":"10.2319/100922-691.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the utility and efficiency of four voice-activated, artificial intelligence-based virtual assistants (Alexa, Google Assistant, Siri, and Cortana) in addressing commonly asked patient questions in orthodontic offices.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Two orthodontists, an orthodontic resident, an oral and maxillofacial radiologist, and a dental student used a standardized list of 12 questions to query and evaluate the four most common commercial virtual assistant devices. A modified Likert scale was used to evaluate their performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Google Assistant had the lowest (best) mean score, followed by Siri, Alexa, and Cortana. The score of Google Assistant was significantly lower than Alexa and Cortana. There was significant variablity in virtual assistant response scores among the evaluators, with the exception of Amazon Alexa. Lower scores indicated superior efficiency and utility.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The common commercially available virtual assistants tested in this study showed significant differences in how they responded to users. There were also significant differences in their performance when responding to common orthodontic queries. An intelligent virtual assistant with evidence-based responses specifically curated for orthodontics may be a good solution to address this issue. The investigators in this study agreed that such a device would provide value to patients and clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":50790,"journal":{"name":"Angle Orthodontist","volume":"93 4","pages":"427-432"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10294585/pdf/i1945-7103-93-4-427.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Angle Orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/100922-691.1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the utility and efficiency of four voice-activated, artificial intelligence-based virtual assistants (Alexa, Google Assistant, Siri, and Cortana) in addressing commonly asked patient questions in orthodontic offices.

Materials and methods: Two orthodontists, an orthodontic resident, an oral and maxillofacial radiologist, and a dental student used a standardized list of 12 questions to query and evaluate the four most common commercial virtual assistant devices. A modified Likert scale was used to evaluate their performance.

Results: Google Assistant had the lowest (best) mean score, followed by Siri, Alexa, and Cortana. The score of Google Assistant was significantly lower than Alexa and Cortana. There was significant variablity in virtual assistant response scores among the evaluators, with the exception of Amazon Alexa. Lower scores indicated superior efficiency and utility.

Conclusions: The common commercially available virtual assistants tested in this study showed significant differences in how they responded to users. There were also significant differences in their performance when responding to common orthodontic queries. An intelligent virtual assistant with evidence-based responses specifically curated for orthodontics may be a good solution to address this issue. The investigators in this study agreed that such a device would provide value to patients and clinicians.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于人工智能的虚拟助手在回答有关正畸的常规问题时的准确性。
目的:评估四种声控、基于人工智能的虚拟助手(Alexa、Google Assistant、Siri和Cortana)在解决正畸诊所患者常见问题方面的效用和效率。材料和方法:两名正畸医生,一名正畸住院医师,一名口腔颌面放射科医生和一名牙科学生使用标准化的12个问题列表来查询和评估四种最常见的商用虚拟助手设备。采用改良李克特量表对其进行评价。结果:谷歌助手的平均得分最低(最好),其次是Siri、Alexa和Cortana。Google Assistant的得分明显低于Alexa和Cortana。除了亚马逊Alexa之外,评估者在虚拟助手的反应得分上存在显著差异。分数越低表明效率和效用越好。结论:在本研究中测试的常见商用虚拟助手在如何响应用户方面显示出显着差异。在回答常见的正畸问题时,他们的表现也有显著差异。一个专门为正畸治疗设计的基于证据的智能虚拟助手可能是解决这一问题的一个很好的解决方案。这项研究的研究人员一致认为,这种设备将为患者和临床医生提供价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Angle Orthodontist
Angle Orthodontist 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
95
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Angle Orthodontist is the official publication of the Edward H. Angle Society of Orthodontists and is published bimonthly in January, March, May, July, September and November by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation Inc. The Angle Orthodontist is the only major journal in orthodontics with a non-commercial, non-profit publisher -- The E. H. Angle Education and Research Foundation. We value our freedom to operate exclusively in the best interests of our readers and authors. Our website www.angle.org is completely free and open to all visitors.
期刊最新文献
Does clinical experience affect the bracket bonding accuracy of guided bonding devices in vitro? Digitization and validation of the open bite checklist manifesto: a step toward artificial intelligence. The effect of vertical skeletal proportions on overbite changes in untreated adolescents: a longitudinal evaluation. Predicted overbite and overjet changes with the Invisalign appliance: a validation study. Responsiveness of three measurements in cone-beam computed tomography transverse analyses during both tooth-supported and mini-screw-assisted rapid maxillary expansion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1