Can large language models provide accurate and quality information to parents regarding chronic kidney diseases?

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-07-03 DOI:10.1111/jep.14084
Rüya Naz, Okan Akacı, Hakan Erdoğan, Ayfer Açıkgöz
{"title":"Can large language models provide accurate and quality information to parents regarding chronic kidney diseases?","authors":"Rüya Naz, Okan Akacı, Hakan Erdoğan, Ayfer Açıkgöz","doi":"10.1111/jep.14084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Artificial Intelligence (AI) large language models (LLM) are tools capable of generating human-like text responses to user queries across topics. The use of these language models in various medical contexts is currently being studied. However, the performance and content quality of these language models have not been evaluated in specific medical fields.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare the performance of AI LLMs ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot in providing information to parents about chronic kidney diseases (CKD) and compare the information accuracy and quality with that of a reference source.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, 40 frequently asked questions about CKD were identified. The accuracy and quality of the answers were evaluated with reference to the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines. The accuracy of the responses generated by LLMs was assessed using F1, precision and recall scores. The quality of the responses was evaluated using a five-point global quality score (GQS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT and Gemini achieved high F1 scores of 0.89 and 1, respectively, in the diagnosis and lifestyle categories, demonstrating significant success in generating accurate responses. Furthermore, ChatGPT and Gemini were successful in generating accurate responses with high precision values in the diagnosis and lifestyle categories. In terms of recall values, all LLMs exhibited strong performance in the diagnosis, treatment and lifestyle categories. Average GQ scores for the responses generated were 3.46 ± 0.55, 1.93 ± 0.63 and 2.02 ± 0.69 for Gemini, ChatGPT 3.5 and Copilot, respectively. In all categories, Gemini performed better than ChatGPT and Copilot.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although LLMs provide parents with high-accuracy information about CKD, their use is limited compared with that of a reference source. The limitations in the performance of LLMs can lead to misinformation and potential misinterpretations. Therefore, patients and parents should exercise caution when using these models.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14084","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: Artificial Intelligence (AI) large language models (LLM) are tools capable of generating human-like text responses to user queries across topics. The use of these language models in various medical contexts is currently being studied. However, the performance and content quality of these language models have not been evaluated in specific medical fields.

Aims and objectives: This study aimed to compare the performance of AI LLMs ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot in providing information to parents about chronic kidney diseases (CKD) and compare the information accuracy and quality with that of a reference source.

Methods: In this study, 40 frequently asked questions about CKD were identified. The accuracy and quality of the answers were evaluated with reference to the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines. The accuracy of the responses generated by LLMs was assessed using F1, precision and recall scores. The quality of the responses was evaluated using a five-point global quality score (GQS).

Results: ChatGPT and Gemini achieved high F1 scores of 0.89 and 1, respectively, in the diagnosis and lifestyle categories, demonstrating significant success in generating accurate responses. Furthermore, ChatGPT and Gemini were successful in generating accurate responses with high precision values in the diagnosis and lifestyle categories. In terms of recall values, all LLMs exhibited strong performance in the diagnosis, treatment and lifestyle categories. Average GQ scores for the responses generated were 3.46 ± 0.55, 1.93 ± 0.63 and 2.02 ± 0.69 for Gemini, ChatGPT 3.5 and Copilot, respectively. In all categories, Gemini performed better than ChatGPT and Copilot.

Conclusion: Although LLMs provide parents with high-accuracy information about CKD, their use is limited compared with that of a reference source. The limitations in the performance of LLMs can lead to misinformation and potential misinterpretations. Therefore, patients and parents should exercise caution when using these models.

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
大型语言模型能否为家长提供准确、高质量的慢性肾脏疾病信息?
理由人工智能(AI)大语言模型(LLM)是一种工具,能够对用户的跨主题查询生成类似人类的文本回复。目前正在研究在各种医疗环境中使用这些语言模型。然而,这些语言模型的性能和内容质量尚未在特定的医疗领域得到评估:本研究旨在比较人工智能语言模型 ChatGPT、Gemini 和 Copilot 在向父母提供有关慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)信息方面的表现,并将其信息准确性和质量与参考来源的信息进行比较:本研究确定了 40 个有关 CKD 的常见问题。方法:本研究确定了 40 个有关 CKD 的常见问题,并参照《肾脏病:改善全球结果》指南对答案的准确性和质量进行了评估。使用 F1、精确度和召回分数评估了 LLM 生成的回答的准确性。回答质量采用五点总体质量评分(GQS)进行评估:结果:ChatGPT 和 Gemini 在诊断和生活方式类别中分别获得了 0.89 和 1 的高 F1 分数,这表明它们在生成准确回复方面取得了巨大成功。此外,在诊断和生活方式类别中,ChatGPT 和 Gemini 还成功地生成了精确度较高的准确回复。就召回值而言,所有 LLM 在诊断、治疗和生活方式类别中都表现出很强的性能。Gemini、ChatGPT 3.5 和 Copilot 生成的回复的平均 GQ 分数分别为 3.46 ± 0.55、1.93 ± 0.63 和 2.02 ± 0.69。在所有类别中,Gemini 的表现均优于 ChatGPT 和 Copilot:结论:虽然 LLM 为家长提供了高准确度的 CKD 信息,但与参考来源相比,LLM 的使用范围有限。LLM 在性能上的局限性可能会导致错误信息和潜在的误解。因此,患者和家长在使用这些模型时应谨慎。
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
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
期刊最新文献
Adaptation of the health literacy survey19-Europe-Q12 into Turkish culture: A psychometric study. The effect of preadmission education given to bariatric surgery patients on postoperative recovery: A randomized controlled study. What is the probability that higher versus lower quality of evidence represents true effects estimates? Effect of evidence-based nursing practices on individualised care: A cross-sectional descriptive study. Mastering meta-analysis in Microsoft Excel with MetaXL add-in: A comprehensive tutorial and guide to meta-analysis.
×
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