Both Patients and Plastic Surgeons Prefer Artificial Intelligence-Generated Microsurgical Information.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Journal of reconstructive microsurgery Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-21 DOI:10.1055/a-2273-4163
Charlotte E Berry, Alexander Z Fazilat, Christopher Lavin, Hendrik Lintel, Naomi Cole, Cybil S Stingl, Caleb Valencia, Annah G Morgan, Arash Momeni, Derrick C Wan
{"title":"Both Patients and Plastic Surgeons Prefer Artificial Intelligence-Generated Microsurgical Information.","authors":"Charlotte E Berry, Alexander Z Fazilat, Christopher Lavin, Hendrik Lintel, Naomi Cole, Cybil S Stingl, Caleb Valencia, Annah G Morgan, Arash Momeni, Derrick C Wan","doi":"10.1055/a-2273-4163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong> With the growing relevance of artificial intelligence (AI)-based patient-facing information, microsurgical-specific online information provided by professional organizations was compared with that of ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer) and assessed for accuracy, comprehensiveness, clarity, and readability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> Six plastic and reconstructive surgeons blindly assessed responses to 10 microsurgery-related medical questions written either by the American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgery (ASRM) or ChatGPT based on accuracy, comprehensiveness, and clarity. Surgeons were asked to choose which source provided the overall highest-quality microsurgical patient-facing information. Additionally, 30 individuals with no medical background (ages: 18-81, μ = 49.8) were asked to determine a preference when blindly comparing materials. Readability scores were calculated, and all numerical scores were analyzed using the following six reliability formulas: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch-Kincaid Readability Ease, Gunning Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Linsear Write Formula, and Automated Readability Index. Statistical analysis of microsurgical-specific online sources was conducted utilizing paired <i>t</i>-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Statistically significant differences in comprehensiveness and clarity were seen in favor of ChatGPT. Surgeons, 70.7% of the time, blindly choose ChatGPT as the source that overall provided the highest-quality microsurgical patient-facing information. Nonmedical individuals 55.9% of the time selected AI-generated microsurgical materials as well. Neither ChatGPT nor ASRM-generated materials were found to contain inaccuracies. Readability scores for both ChatGPT and ASRM materials were found to exceed recommended levels for patient proficiency across six readability formulas, with AI-based material scored as more complex.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> AI-generated patient-facing materials were preferred by surgeons in terms of comprehensiveness and clarity when blindly compared with online material provided by ASRM. Studied AI-generated material was not found to contain inaccuracies. Additionally, surgeons and nonmedical individuals consistently indicated an overall preference for AI-generated material. A readability analysis suggested that both materials sourced from ChatGPT and ASRM surpassed recommended reading levels across six readability scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":16949,"journal":{"name":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","volume":" ","pages":"657-664"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2273-4163","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:  With the growing relevance of artificial intelligence (AI)-based patient-facing information, microsurgical-specific online information provided by professional organizations was compared with that of ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer) and assessed for accuracy, comprehensiveness, clarity, and readability.

Methods:  Six plastic and reconstructive surgeons blindly assessed responses to 10 microsurgery-related medical questions written either by the American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgery (ASRM) or ChatGPT based on accuracy, comprehensiveness, and clarity. Surgeons were asked to choose which source provided the overall highest-quality microsurgical patient-facing information. Additionally, 30 individuals with no medical background (ages: 18-81, μ = 49.8) were asked to determine a preference when blindly comparing materials. Readability scores were calculated, and all numerical scores were analyzed using the following six reliability formulas: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch-Kincaid Readability Ease, Gunning Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Linsear Write Formula, and Automated Readability Index. Statistical analysis of microsurgical-specific online sources was conducted utilizing paired t-tests.

Results:  Statistically significant differences in comprehensiveness and clarity were seen in favor of ChatGPT. Surgeons, 70.7% of the time, blindly choose ChatGPT as the source that overall provided the highest-quality microsurgical patient-facing information. Nonmedical individuals 55.9% of the time selected AI-generated microsurgical materials as well. Neither ChatGPT nor ASRM-generated materials were found to contain inaccuracies. Readability scores for both ChatGPT and ASRM materials were found to exceed recommended levels for patient proficiency across six readability formulas, with AI-based material scored as more complex.

Conclusion:  AI-generated patient-facing materials were preferred by surgeons in terms of comprehensiveness and clarity when blindly compared with online material provided by ASRM. Studied AI-generated material was not found to contain inaccuracies. Additionally, surgeons and nonmedical individuals consistently indicated an overall preference for AI-generated material. A readability analysis suggested that both materials sourced from ChatGPT and ASRM surpassed recommended reading levels across six readability scores.

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
患者和整形外科医生都喜欢人工智能生成的微整形信息。
背景:随着基于人工智能的面向患者的信息越来越重要,我们将专业组织提供的显微外科特定在线信息与 ChatGPT 的信息进行了比较,并对其准确性、全面性、清晰度和可读性进行了评估:六名整形外科医生对美国整形显微外科学会(ASRM)或 ChatGPT 提出的十个显微外科相关医疗问题的回答进行了盲法评估,评估的标准是准确性、全面性和清晰度。外科医生被要求选择哪个来源提供的面向患者的显微外科信息总体质量最高。此外,还要求 30 位无医学背景的个人(年龄在 18-81 岁之间,μ=49.8)在盲比资料时确定偏好。计算可读性得分,并使用以下六种可靠性公式分析所有数值得分:Flesch-Kincaid等级水平、Flesch-Kincaid易读性、Gunning Fog指数、Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG)指数、Coleman-Liau指数、Linsear书写公式(LWF)和自动可读性指数。利用配对 t 检验对显微外科专用在线资源进行了统计分析:结果:从统计学角度看,ChatGPT 在全面性和清晰度方面具有明显优势。70.7%的外科医生盲目地选择 ChatGPT 作为提供面向患者的最高质量显微外科信息的来源。非医务人员也有 55.9% 的时间选择人工智能生成的显微外科资料。无论是 ChatGPT 还是 ASRM 生成的资料都没有发现不准确之处。在六个可读性公式中,ChatGPT 和 ASRM 材料的可读性得分均超过了患者熟练程度的建议水平,而基于人工智能的材料得分更高:结论:与 ASRM 提供的在线资料进行盲比时,外科医生更喜欢人工智能生成的面向患者的资料的全面性和清晰度。研究发现,人工智能生成的资料不存在不准确之处。此外,外科医生和非医务人员一致表示更喜欢人工智能生成的材料。可读性分析表明,来自 ChatGPT 和 ASRM 的材料在六项可读性评分中均超过了推荐的阅读水平。
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
4.50
自引率
28.60%
发文量
80
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery is a peer-reviewed, indexed journal that provides an international forum for the publication of articles focusing on reconstructive microsurgery and complex reconstructive surgery. The journal was originally established in 1984 for the microsurgical community to publish and share academic papers. The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery provides the latest in original research spanning basic laboratory, translational, and clinical investigations. Review papers cover current topics in complex reconstruction and microsurgery. In addition, special sections discuss new technologies, innovations, materials, and significant problem cases. The journal welcomes controversial topics, editorial comments, book reviews, and letters to the Editor, in order to complete the balanced spectrum of information available in the Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery. All articles undergo stringent peer review by international experts in the specialty.
期刊最新文献
Free Fasciocutaneous versus Muscle Flaps in Lower Extremity Reconstruction: Implications for Functionality and Quality of Life. Utilizing Perforator Propeller Flaps for Donor Site Closure: Harvesting Large Workhorse Flaps without Lingering Concerns. Oncoplastic Surgery with Volume Replacement versus Mastectomy with Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Early Postoperative Complications in Patients with Breast Cancer. Effect of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Morbidly Obese Patients Undergoing Free Flap Breast Reconstruction. The Vascular Anatomy and Harvesting of the Lateral Femoral Condyle Flap in Pigs.
×
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