Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT and Google Gemini in the Creation of Patient Education Materials for Acute Appendicitis, Cholecystitis, and Hydrocele

IF 0.4 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY Indian Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-07-03 DOI:10.1007/s12262-024-04112-y
Thaimye Joseph, Neysa Sanghavi, Shweta Kanyal, Kaustav Majumder, Hakeem Seidu-Aroza, Arjun Godavarthi
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT and Google Gemini in the Creation of Patient Education Materials for Acute Appendicitis, Cholecystitis, and Hydrocele","authors":"Thaimye Joseph, Neysa Sanghavi, Shweta Kanyal, Kaustav Majumder, Hakeem Seidu-Aroza, Arjun Godavarthi","doi":"10.1007/s12262-024-04112-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Patient education is essential for managing conditions like acute appendicitis, cholecystitis, and hydrocele, as it empowers patients to seek timely medical intervention, which can dramatically improve outcomes. Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly integral in healthcare, enhancing the delivery and accessibility of patient education. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of ChatGPT and Google Gemini in creating patient education guides on acute appendicitis, cholecystitis, and hydrocele. In this cross-sectional study, we generated patient education brochures for three diseases using two AI tools, ChatGPT and Google Gemini. The responses were evaluated based on several variables including word count, sentence length, readability (assessed with the Flesch-Kincaid Calculator), similarity (analyzed using Quillbot), and reliability (measured by the Modified DISCERN Score). Statistical analyses were performed using unpaired <i>t</i>-tests and Pearson’s correlation coefficients. The analysis revealed that there were no significant differences in readability scores, word counts, sentence lengths, or reliability scores between the materials produced by ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Additionally, correlation analyses indicated a positive correlation for ease scores and a negative correlation for reliability scores between the tools, though these findings were not statistically significant. The study concludes that ChatGPT and Google Gemini are equally effective in producing patient education materials for acute appendicitis, cholecystitis, and hydrocele. The absence of significant differences between the two AI tools suggests their potential utility as educational resources in healthcare settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":13391,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-024-04112-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Patient education is essential for managing conditions like acute appendicitis, cholecystitis, and hydrocele, as it empowers patients to seek timely medical intervention, which can dramatically improve outcomes. Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly integral in healthcare, enhancing the delivery and accessibility of patient education. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of ChatGPT and Google Gemini in creating patient education guides on acute appendicitis, cholecystitis, and hydrocele. In this cross-sectional study, we generated patient education brochures for three diseases using two AI tools, ChatGPT and Google Gemini. The responses were evaluated based on several variables including word count, sentence length, readability (assessed with the Flesch-Kincaid Calculator), similarity (analyzed using Quillbot), and reliability (measured by the Modified DISCERN Score). Statistical analyses were performed using unpaired t-tests and Pearson’s correlation coefficients. The analysis revealed that there were no significant differences in readability scores, word counts, sentence lengths, or reliability scores between the materials produced by ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Additionally, correlation analyses indicated a positive correlation for ease scores and a negative correlation for reliability scores between the tools, though these findings were not statistically significant. The study concludes that ChatGPT and Google Gemini are equally effective in producing patient education materials for acute appendicitis, cholecystitis, and hydrocele. The absence of significant differences between the two AI tools suggests their potential utility as educational resources in healthcare settings.

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
ChatGPT 和 Google Gemini 在创建急性阑尾炎、胆囊炎和鞘膜积液患者教育材料中的对比分析
患者教育对于急性阑尾炎、胆囊炎和鞘膜积液等疾病的治疗至关重要,因为它能让患者及时寻求医疗干预,从而显著改善治疗效果。人工智能工具越来越多地融入医疗保健领域,提高了患者教育的交付和可及性。本研究旨在比较 ChatGPT 和 Google Gemini 在创建急性阑尾炎、胆囊炎和鞘膜积液患者教育指南方面的效果。在这项横向研究中,我们使用 ChatGPT 和 Google Gemini 这两种人工智能工具制作了三种疾病的患者教育手册。我们根据字数、句子长度、可读性(用 Flesch-Kincaid 计算器评估)、相似性(用 Quillbot 分析)和可靠性(用修正的 DISCERN 分数衡量)等几个变量对回复进行了评估。统计分析采用非配对 t 检验和皮尔逊相关系数。分析结果表明,ChatGPT 和 Google Gemini 制作的材料在可读性得分、字数、句子长度或可靠性得分方面没有明显差异。此外,相关性分析表明,这两种工具的易读性得分呈正相关,可靠性得分呈负相关,但这些结果在统计学上并不显著。研究得出结论,ChatGPT 和 Google Gemini 在制作急性阑尾炎、胆囊炎和鞘膜积液的患者教育材料方面同样有效。这两种人工智能工具之间没有明显差异,这表明它们在医疗机构中作为教育资源具有潜在的实用性。
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
0.60
自引率
25.00%
发文量
412
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Indian Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the Association of Surgeons of India that considers for publication articles in all fields of surgery. Issues are published bimonthly in the months of February, April, June, August, October and December. The journal publishes Original article, Point of technique, Review article, Case report, Letter to editor, Teachers and surgeons from the past - A short (up to 500 words) bio sketch of a revered teacher or surgeon whom you hold in esteem and Images in surgery, surgical pathology, and surgical radiology. A trusted resource for peer-reviewed coverage of all types of surgery Provides a forum for surgeons in India and abroad to exchange ideas and advance the art of surgery The official publication of the Association of Surgeons of India 92% of authors who answered a survey reported that they would definitely publish or probably publish in the journal again The Indian Journal of Surgery offers peer-reviewed coverage of all types of surgery. The Journal publishes Original articles, Points of technique, Review articles, Case reports, Letters, Images and brief biographies of influential teachers and surgeons. The Journal spans General Surgery, Pediatric Surgery, Neurosurgery, Plastic Surgery, Cardiothoracic Surgery, Vascular Surgery, Rural Surgery, Orthopedic Surgery, Urology, Surgical Oncology, Radiology, Anaesthesia, Trauma Services, Minimal Access Surgery, Endocrine Surgery, GI Surgery, ENT, Colorectal Surgery, surgical practice and research. The Journal provides a forum for surgeons from India and abroad to exchange ideas, to propagate the advancement of science and the art of surgery and to promote friendship among surgeons in India and abroad. This has been a trusted platform for surgons in communicating up-to-date scientific informeation to the community.
期刊最新文献
‘Mid-term Reflections of the President’—Charting Progress and Future Directions for the Association of Surgeons of India Clinico-Radiological Features of Acute and Chronic Superior Mesenteric Artery Occlusion (SMAO) Utilizing Hysteroscopic Mesh Resection for Presacral Mesh Infection Following Sacrocolpopexy Bleeding Jejunal Diverticula: Always a Timely Reminder Execution of Ipsilateral Radical Tonsillectomy and Tongue Base Mucosal Wedge Biopsy with Trans Oral Robotic Surgery (TORS) in the Setting of Carcinoma Unknown Primary (CUP): Insights into Surgical Techniques and Instrumentation
×
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