Unveiling the Potential: ChatGPT's Impact on Vestibular Rehabilitation Education - Trust, Learning, and Value

Yael Arbel, Yoav Gimmon, Liora Shmueli
{"title":"Unveiling the Potential: ChatGPT's Impact on Vestibular Rehabilitation Education - Trust, Learning, and Value","authors":"Yael Arbel, Yoav Gimmon, Liora Shmueli","doi":"10.1101/2024.01.24.24301737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate the accuracy, completeness, and explanations provided by ChatGPT in response to multiple-choice questions related to vestibular rehabilitation.\nStudy Design: The study was conducted among 30 physical therapists professionals experienced with vestibular rehabilitation and 30 physical therapy students. They were asked to complete a Vestibular Knowledge Test consisting of 20 multiple-choice questions categorized into three groups: (1) Clinical Knowledge, (2) Basic Clinical Practice, and (3) Clinical Reasoning. Additionally, in May 2023, ChatGPT was tasked with answering the same 20 VKT questions and providing rationales for its answers. Three expert board-certified otoneurologists evaluated independently the accuracy of each ChatGPT response on a 4-level scale.\nResults: ChatGPT correctly answered 14 of the 20 multiple-choice questions (70%). It excelled in Clinical Knowledge (100%) but struggled in Clinical Reasoning (50%). According to three otoneurologic experts, ChatGPT's accuracy was \"comprehensive\" for 9 of the 20 questions (45%), while 5 (25%) were \"completely incorrect\". ChatGPT provided \"comprehensive\" responses in 50% of Clinical Knowledge and Basic Clinical Practice questions, but only 25% in Clinical Reasoning.\nConclusion: Caution is advised when using the current version of ChatGPT due to its limited accuracy in clinical reasoning. While it provides accurate responses concerning Clinical Knowledge, its reliance on web information may lead to inconsistencies. Healthcare professionals should carefully formulate questions and be aware of the potential influence of the online prevalence of information on ChatGPT's responses. Combining clinical expertise and guidelines with ChatGPT can maximize benefits while mitigating limitations.","PeriodicalId":501453,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy","volume":"252 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.24.24301737","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy, completeness, and explanations provided by ChatGPT in response to multiple-choice questions related to vestibular rehabilitation. Study Design: The study was conducted among 30 physical therapists professionals experienced with vestibular rehabilitation and 30 physical therapy students. They were asked to complete a Vestibular Knowledge Test consisting of 20 multiple-choice questions categorized into three groups: (1) Clinical Knowledge, (2) Basic Clinical Practice, and (3) Clinical Reasoning. Additionally, in May 2023, ChatGPT was tasked with answering the same 20 VKT questions and providing rationales for its answers. Three expert board-certified otoneurologists evaluated independently the accuracy of each ChatGPT response on a 4-level scale. Results: ChatGPT correctly answered 14 of the 20 multiple-choice questions (70%). It excelled in Clinical Knowledge (100%) but struggled in Clinical Reasoning (50%). According to three otoneurologic experts, ChatGPT's accuracy was "comprehensive" for 9 of the 20 questions (45%), while 5 (25%) were "completely incorrect". ChatGPT provided "comprehensive" responses in 50% of Clinical Knowledge and Basic Clinical Practice questions, but only 25% in Clinical Reasoning. Conclusion: Caution is advised when using the current version of ChatGPT due to its limited accuracy in clinical reasoning. While it provides accurate responses concerning Clinical Knowledge, its reliance on web information may lead to inconsistencies. Healthcare professionals should carefully formulate questions and be aware of the potential influence of the online prevalence of information on ChatGPT's responses. Combining clinical expertise and guidelines with ChatGPT can maximize benefits while mitigating limitations.
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
释放潜能:ChatGPT 对前庭康复教育的影响--信任、学习和价值
研究目的评估 ChatGPT 在回答有关前庭康复的多选题时提供的解释的准确性、完整性:研究对象: 30 名有前庭康复经验的物理治疗师和 30 名物理治疗专业学生。他们被要求完成由 20 道选择题组成的前庭知识测试,这些选择题分为三组:(1)临床知识;(2)基本临床实践;(3)临床推理。此外,在 2023 年 5 月,ChatGPT 的任务是回答同样的 20 道 VKT 问题,并为其答案提供理由。三位经委员会认证的耳神经科专家按照 4 级评分标准独立评估了 ChatGPT 每项回答的准确性:结果:ChatGPT 正确回答了 20 道选择题中的 14 道(70%)。它在临床知识方面表现出色(100%),但在临床推理方面却很吃力(50%)。根据三位耳神经专家的意见,ChatGPT 在 20 个问题中回答了 9 个问题(45%),准确率为 "全面",而 5 个问题(25%)则 "完全错误"。ChatGPT 在 50% 的临床知识和基本临床实践问题中提供了 "全面 "的回答,但在临床推理问题中仅提供了 25% 的回答:结论:由于当前版本的 ChatGPT 在临床推理方面的准确性有限,建议谨慎使用。虽然它能准确回答临床知识方面的问题,但它对网络信息的依赖可能会导致不一致。医疗保健专业人员应仔细拟定问题,并注意网络信息的流行对 ChatGPT 回答的潜在影响。将临床专业知识和指南与 ChatGPT 相结合,可以最大限度地发挥其优势,同时减少局限性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS: INTERPRETATION OF NON-STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RESULTS IN RANDOMISED CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS IN REHABILITATION Targeted deep brain stimulation of the motor thalamus improves speech and swallowing motor functions after cerebral lesions Normal feeding movements expressed by dimensionality reduction of whole-body joint motions using principal component analysis Impact of early postoperative ambulation on gait recovery after hip fracture surgery: A multicenter cohort study Backward Locomotor Treadmill Training on Walking and Balance Outcomes in Stroke Survivors: A Randomized Clinical Trial
×
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