Chatbots talk Strabismus: Can AI become the new patient Educator?

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS International Journal of Medical Informatics Pub Date : 2024-08-16 DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105592
İbrahim Edhem Yılmaz , Mustafa Berhuni , Zeynep Özer Özcan , Levent Doğan
{"title":"Chatbots talk Strabismus: Can AI become the new patient Educator?","authors":"İbrahim Edhem Yılmaz ,&nbsp;Mustafa Berhuni ,&nbsp;Zeynep Özer Özcan ,&nbsp;Levent Doğan","doi":"10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Strabismus is a common eye condition affecting both children and adults. Effective patient education is crucial for informed decision-making, but traditional methods often lack accessibility and engagement. Chatbots powered by AI have emerged as a promising solution.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This study aims to evaluate and compare the performance of three chatbots (ChatGPT, Bard, and Copilot) and a reliable website (AAPOS) in answering real patient questions about strabismus.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Three chatbots (ChatGPT, Bard, and Copilot) were compared to a reliable website (AAPOS) using real patient questions. Metrics included accuracy (SOLO taxonomy), understandability/actionability (PEMAT), and readability (Flesch-Kincaid). We also performed a sentiment analysis to capture the emotional tone and impact of the responses.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The AAPOS achieved the highest mean SOLO score (4.14 ± 0.47), followed by Bard, Copilot, and ChatGPT. Bard scored highest on both PEMAT-U (74.8 ± 13.3) and PEMAT-A (66.2 ± 13.6) measures. Flesch-Kincaid Ease Scores revealed the AAPOS as the easiest to read (mean score: 55.8 ± 14.11), closely followed by Copilot. ChatGPT, and Bard had lower scores on readability. The sentiment analysis revealed exciting differences.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Chatbots, particularly Bard and Copilot, show promise in patient education for strabismus with strengths in understandability and actionability. However, the AAPOS website outperformed in accuracy and readability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54950,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505624002557","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Strabismus is a common eye condition affecting both children and adults. Effective patient education is crucial for informed decision-making, but traditional methods often lack accessibility and engagement. Chatbots powered by AI have emerged as a promising solution.

Aim

This study aims to evaluate and compare the performance of three chatbots (ChatGPT, Bard, and Copilot) and a reliable website (AAPOS) in answering real patient questions about strabismus.

Method

Three chatbots (ChatGPT, Bard, and Copilot) were compared to a reliable website (AAPOS) using real patient questions. Metrics included accuracy (SOLO taxonomy), understandability/actionability (PEMAT), and readability (Flesch-Kincaid). We also performed a sentiment analysis to capture the emotional tone and impact of the responses.

Results

The AAPOS achieved the highest mean SOLO score (4.14 ± 0.47), followed by Bard, Copilot, and ChatGPT. Bard scored highest on both PEMAT-U (74.8 ± 13.3) and PEMAT-A (66.2 ± 13.6) measures. Flesch-Kincaid Ease Scores revealed the AAPOS as the easiest to read (mean score: 55.8 ± 14.11), closely followed by Copilot. ChatGPT, and Bard had lower scores on readability. The sentiment analysis revealed exciting differences.

Conclusion

Chatbots, particularly Bard and Copilot, show promise in patient education for strabismus with strengths in understandability and actionability. However, the AAPOS website outperformed in accuracy and readability.

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
聊天机器人与斜视对话:人工智能能否成为新的患者教育者?
背景斜视是一种常见的眼部疾病,对儿童和成人都有影响。有效的患者教育对知情决策至关重要,但传统方法往往缺乏可及性和参与性。本研究旨在评估和比较三个聊天机器人(ChatGPT、Bard 和 Copilot)和一个可靠的网站(AAPOS)在回答患者有关斜视的真实问题时的表现。方法使用患者的真实问题将三个聊天机器人(ChatGPT、Bard 和 Copilot)与一个可靠的网站(AAPOS)进行比较。衡量标准包括准确性(SOLO 分类法)、可理解性/可操作性(PEMAT)和可读性(Flesch-Kincaid)。我们还进行了情感分析,以捕捉回复的情感基调和影响。结果AAPOS的SOLO平均得分最高(4.14 ± 0.47),其次是Bard、Copilot和ChatGPT。Bard 在 PEMAT-U (74.8 ± 13.3) 和 PEMAT-A (66.2 ± 13.6) 两项测量中得分最高。Flesch-Kincaid 易读性评分显示,AAPOS 最容易阅读(平均分:55.8 ± 14.11),紧随其后的是 Copilot。ChatGPT 和 Bard 的易读性得分较低。情感分析显示了令人兴奋的差异。结论聊天机器人,尤其是 Bard 和 Copilot,在斜视患者教育方面显示出了可理解性和可操作性的优势。然而,AAPOS 网站在准确性和可读性方面表现更胜一筹。
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
International Journal of Medical Informatics
International Journal of Medical Informatics 医学-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.10%
发文量
217
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: International Journal of Medical Informatics provides an international medium for dissemination of original results and interpretative reviews concerning the field of medical informatics. The Journal emphasizes the evaluation of systems in healthcare settings. The scope of journal covers: Information systems, including national or international registration systems, hospital information systems, departmental and/or physician''s office systems, document handling systems, electronic medical record systems, standardization, systems integration etc.; Computer-aided medical decision support systems using heuristic, algorithmic and/or statistical methods as exemplified in decision theory, protocol development, artificial intelligence, etc. Educational computer based programs pertaining to medical informatics or medicine in general; Organizational, economic, social, clinical impact, ethical and cost-benefit aspects of IT applications in health care.
期刊最新文献
Application of the openEHR reference model for PGHD: A case study on the DH-Convener initiative Tracking provenance in clinical data warehouses for quality management Acute myocardial infarction risk prediction in emergency chest pain patients: An external validation study Healthcare professionals’ cross-organizational access to electronic health records: A scoping review Cross-modal similar clinical case retrieval using a modular model based on contrastive learning and k-nearest neighbor search
×
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