Foot and Ankle Patient Education Materials and Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: A Comparative Analysis.

Aarav S Parekh, Joseph A S McCahon, Amy Nghe, David I Pedowitz, Joseph N Daniel, Selene G Parekh
{"title":"Foot and Ankle Patient Education Materials and Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: A Comparative Analysis.","authors":"Aarav S Parekh, Joseph A S McCahon, Amy Nghe, David I Pedowitz, Joseph N Daniel, Selene G Parekh","doi":"10.1177/19386400241235834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of foot and ankle patient education material generated by the AI chatbots, as they compare to the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS)-recommended patient education website, FootCareMD.org.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing AI were used to generate patient educational materials on 10 of the most common foot and ankle conditions. The content from these AI language model platforms was analyzed and compared with that in FootCareMD.org for accuracy of included information. Accuracy was determined for each of the 10 conditions on a basis of included information regarding background, symptoms, causes, diagnosis, treatments, surgical options, recovery procedures, and risks or preventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When compared to the reference standard of the AOFAS website FootCareMD.org, the AI language model platforms consistently scored below 60% in accuracy rates in all categories of the articles analyzed. ChatGPT was found to contain an average of 46.2% of key content across all included conditions when compared to FootCareMD.org. Comparatively, Google Bard and Bing AI contained 36.5% and 28.0% of information included on FootCareMD.org, respectively (P < .005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patient education regarding common foot and ankle conditions generated by AI language models provides limited content accuracy across all 3 AI chatbot platforms.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":73046,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle specialist","volume":" ","pages":"19386400241235834"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & ankle specialist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19386400241235834","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

Background: The purpose of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of foot and ankle patient education material generated by the AI chatbots, as they compare to the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS)-recommended patient education website, FootCareMD.org.

Methods: ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing AI were used to generate patient educational materials on 10 of the most common foot and ankle conditions. The content from these AI language model platforms was analyzed and compared with that in FootCareMD.org for accuracy of included information. Accuracy was determined for each of the 10 conditions on a basis of included information regarding background, symptoms, causes, diagnosis, treatments, surgical options, recovery procedures, and risks or preventions.

Results: When compared to the reference standard of the AOFAS website FootCareMD.org, the AI language model platforms consistently scored below 60% in accuracy rates in all categories of the articles analyzed. ChatGPT was found to contain an average of 46.2% of key content across all included conditions when compared to FootCareMD.org. Comparatively, Google Bard and Bing AI contained 36.5% and 28.0% of information included on FootCareMD.org, respectively (P < .005).

Conclusion: Patient education regarding common foot and ankle conditions generated by AI language models provides limited content accuracy across all 3 AI chatbot platforms.

Level of evidence: Level IV.

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
足踝患者教育材料与人工智能聊天机器人:比较分析。
研究背景本研究的目的是对人工智能聊天机器人生成的足踝患者教育材料进行比较分析,并将其与美国骨科足踝协会(AOFAS)推荐的患者教育网站 FootCareMD.org 进行比较:方法:使用 ChatGPT、Google Bard 和 Bing AI 生成有关 10 种最常见足踝疾病的患者教育材料。对这些人工智能语言模型平台的内容进行了分析,并与 FootCareMD.org 中的内容进行了比较,以确定所含信息的准确性。根据所包含的背景、症状、病因、诊断、治疗、手术选择、恢复过程、风险或预防等方面的信息,分别确定了 10 种病症的准确性:与 AOFAS 网站 FootCareMD.org 的参考标准相比,人工智能语言模型平台在所分析文章的所有类别中的准确率始终低于 60%。与 FootCareMD.org 相比,ChatGPT 在所有包含的条件中平均包含 46.2% 的关键内容。相比之下,Google Bard 和 Bing AI 包含的信息分别为 FootCareMD.org 的 36.5% 和 28.0%(P < .005):人工智能语言模型生成的有关常见足踝疾病的患者教育在所有3个人工智能聊天机器人平台上都提供了有限的内容准确性:证据级别:IV级
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
Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes for First Tarsometatarsal Arthrodesis Using an Intramedullary Nail for Hallux Valgus Deformity A Consecutive Case Series. Survey of Utilization of Weightbearing Computed Tomography Within AOFAS Membership. Association Between Pronation External Rotation IV Fracture Pattern and Regional Bone Density. The Wait Time for Surgery Following Injury Affects Functional Outcomes and Complications After an Ankle Fracture: A Propensity Score-Matched Multicenter Study, the TRON Study. Defining Operative Indications in Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review.
×
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