Evaluation of Informative Content on Cerebral Palsy in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: The Value of ChatGPT.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-15 DOI:10.1080/01942638.2024.2316178
Ayşe Merve Ata, Berke Aras, Özlem Yılmaz Taşdelen, Canan Çelik, Canan Çulha
{"title":"Evaluation of Informative Content on Cerebral Palsy in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: The Value of ChatGPT.","authors":"Ayşe Merve Ata, Berke Aras, Özlem Yılmaz Taşdelen, Canan Çelik, Canan Çulha","doi":"10.1080/01942638.2024.2316178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>In addition to the popular search engines on the Internet, ChatGPT may provide accurate and reliable health information. The aim of this study was to examine whether ChatGPT's responses to frequently asked questions concerning cerebral palsy (CP) by families were reliable and useful.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Google trends were used to find the most frequently searched keywords for CP. Five independent physiatrists assessed ChatGPT responses to 10 questions. Seven-point Likert-type scales were used to rate information reliability and usefulness based on whether the answer can be validated and is understandable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median ratings for reliability of information for each question varied from 2 (very unsafe) to 5 (relatively very reliable). The median rating was 4 (reliable) for four questions. The median ratings for usefulness of information varied from 2 (very little useful) to 5 (moderately useful). The median rating was 4 (partly useful) for seven questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although ChatGPT appears promising as an additional tool for informing family members of individuals with CP about medical information, it should be emphasized that both consumers and health care providers should be aware of the limitations of artificial intelligence-generated information.</p>","PeriodicalId":49138,"journal":{"name":"Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"605-614"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01942638.2024.2316178","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: In addition to the popular search engines on the Internet, ChatGPT may provide accurate and reliable health information. The aim of this study was to examine whether ChatGPT's responses to frequently asked questions concerning cerebral palsy (CP) by families were reliable and useful.

Methods: Google trends were used to find the most frequently searched keywords for CP. Five independent physiatrists assessed ChatGPT responses to 10 questions. Seven-point Likert-type scales were used to rate information reliability and usefulness based on whether the answer can be validated and is understandable.

Results: The median ratings for reliability of information for each question varied from 2 (very unsafe) to 5 (relatively very reliable). The median rating was 4 (reliable) for four questions. The median ratings for usefulness of information varied from 2 (very little useful) to 5 (moderately useful). The median rating was 4 (partly useful) for seven questions.

Conclusion: Although ChatGPT appears promising as an additional tool for informing family members of individuals with CP about medical information, it should be emphasized that both consumers and health care providers should be aware of the limitations of artificial intelligence-generated information.

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
人工智能时代的脑瘫信息内容评估:ChatGPT 的价值。
目的:除了互联网上流行的搜索引擎外,ChatGPT 还可以提供准确可靠的健康信息。本研究旨在探讨 ChatGPT 对家庭提出的有关脑瘫(CP)的常见问题的回答是否可靠和有用:方法:利用谷歌趋势找出最常被搜索的有关 CP 的关键词。五位独立的物理学家评估了 ChatGPT 对 10 个问题的回复。采用七分李克特(Likert)量表,根据答案是否可验证、是否易懂来评定信息的可靠性和实用性:每个问题的信息可靠性评分中值从 2 分(非常不安全)到 5 分(相对非常可靠)不等。有四个问题的评分中值为 4(可靠)。信息有用性的评分中位数从 2 分(用处很小)到 5 分(用处一般)不等。七个问题的评分中位数为 4(部分有用):虽然 ChatGPT 作为向 CP 患者家属提供医疗信息的额外工具似乎很有前景,但需要强调的是,消费者和医疗服务提供者都应意识到人工智能生成信息的局限性。
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
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
42
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: 5 issues per year Abstracted and/or indexed in: AMED; British Library Inside; Child Development Abstracts; CINAHL; Contents Pages in Education; EBSCO; Education Research Abstracts (ERA); Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); EMCARE; Excerpta Medica/EMBASE; Family and Society Studies Worldwide; Family Index Database; Google Scholar; HaPI Database; HINARI; Index Copernicus; Intute; JournalSeek; MANTIS; MEDLINE; NewJour; OCLC; OTDBASE; OT SEARCH; Otseeker; PEDro; ProQuest; PsycINFO; PSYCLINE; PubsHub; PubMed; REHABDATA; SCOPUS; SIRC; Social Work Abstracts; Speical Educational Needs Abstracts; SwetsWise; Zetoc (British Library); Science Citation Index Expanded (also known as SciSearch®); Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition; Social Sciences Citation Index®; Journal Citation Reports/ Social Sciences Edition; Current Contents®/Social and Behavioral Sciences; Current Contents®/Clinical Medicine
期刊最新文献
Knowledge Translation Interventions to Increase the Uptake of Evidence-Based Practice Among Pediatric Rehabilitation Professionals: A Systematic Review. Letter to the Editor. Development and Validation of the Participation Questionnaire for Preschoolers with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Structural Validity, Internal Consistency, and Construct Validity. Home Participation of Infants With and Without Biological Risk in the First Year of Life: A Cross-Sectional and Comparative Study. Telehealth of Infants at Risk During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Physical Therapists' and Caregiver's Perceptions and Costs.
×
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