Is Artificial Intelligence a Useful Tool for Clinical Practice of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery?

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Journal of Craniofacial Surgery Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1097/SCS.0000000000010686
Gözde Işik, İrem A Kafadar-Gürbüz, Fulya Elgün, Remziye U Kara, Buse Berber, Semiha Özgül, Tayfun Günbay
{"title":"Is Artificial Intelligence a Useful Tool for Clinical Practice of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery?","authors":"Gözde Işik, İrem A Kafadar-Gürbüz, Fulya Elgün, Remziye U Kara, Buse Berber, Semiha Özgül, Tayfun Günbay","doi":"10.1097/SCS.0000000000010686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to assess the usefulness of ChatGPT Plus generated responses to clinical-specific questions in oral and maxillofacial surgery. This cross-sectional study was conducted with questions composed according to the Clinical Practise Guide of Ege University, School of Dentistry, and with different subjects of oral and maxillofacial surgery at the undergraduate level. These questions were classified according to their difficulty level (easy, medium, and hard) and inputted into ChatGPT Plus. Three researchers evaluated the responses using a 7-point Likert-type accuracy scale and a modified global quality scale (range: 1-5). Also, error analysis was carried out for the questions scored ≤4 according to the accuracy assessment. A total of 66 questions were enrolled in this study. The questions included dental anesthesia, tooth extraction, preoperative and postoperative complications, suturing, writing prescriptions, and temporomandibular joint examination. The median accuracy score of ChatGPT Plus responses was 5, with 75% of the responses scoring 4 or above. The median quality score was 4, with 75% of the responses scoring 3 or above. There was a significant difference among the 3 difficulty levels, both in accuracy and quality scores ( P <0.001 and 0.001, respectively). The median scores of hard-level questions were found to be lower than the easy-level and medium-level questions. The study outcomes emphasized high accuracy and quality in ChatGPT Plus's responses, except for the questions requiring a detailed response or a comment.</p>","PeriodicalId":15462,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Craniofacial Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"558-562"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Craniofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000010686","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the usefulness of ChatGPT Plus generated responses to clinical-specific questions in oral and maxillofacial surgery. This cross-sectional study was conducted with questions composed according to the Clinical Practise Guide of Ege University, School of Dentistry, and with different subjects of oral and maxillofacial surgery at the undergraduate level. These questions were classified according to their difficulty level (easy, medium, and hard) and inputted into ChatGPT Plus. Three researchers evaluated the responses using a 7-point Likert-type accuracy scale and a modified global quality scale (range: 1-5). Also, error analysis was carried out for the questions scored ≤4 according to the accuracy assessment. A total of 66 questions were enrolled in this study. The questions included dental anesthesia, tooth extraction, preoperative and postoperative complications, suturing, writing prescriptions, and temporomandibular joint examination. The median accuracy score of ChatGPT Plus responses was 5, with 75% of the responses scoring 4 or above. The median quality score was 4, with 75% of the responses scoring 3 or above. There was a significant difference among the 3 difficulty levels, both in accuracy and quality scores ( P <0.001 and 0.001, respectively). The median scores of hard-level questions were found to be lower than the easy-level and medium-level questions. The study outcomes emphasized high accuracy and quality in ChatGPT Plus's responses, except for the questions requiring a detailed response or a comment.

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
人工智能是口腔颌面外科临床实践的有用工具吗?
本研究旨在评估 ChatGPT Plus 生成的口腔颌面外科临床特定问题回复的实用性。这项横断面研究的问题是根据埃格大学牙科学院的临床实践指南编写的,涉及本科阶段口腔颌面外科的不同科目。这些问题根据难易程度(易、中、难)进行了分类,并输入到 ChatGPT Plus 中。三位研究人员使用 7 点李克特准确度量表和修改后的总体质量量表(范围:1-5)对回答进行了评估。此外,还对准确性评估得分≤4 分的问题进行了错误分析。本研究共收集了 66 个问题。这些问题包括牙科麻醉、拔牙、术前和术后并发症、缝合、处方书写和颞下颌关节检查。ChatGPT Plus 回答的准确性中位数为 5 分,75% 的回答得分在 4 分或以上。质量得分的中位数为 4 分,75% 的回答得分在 3 分或以上。三个难度级别在准确度和质量得分上都有明显差异(P
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
1.70
自引率
11.10%
发文量
968
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: ​The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery serves as a forum of communication for all those involved in craniofacial surgery, maxillofacial surgery and pediatric plastic surgery. Coverage ranges from practical aspects of craniofacial surgery to the basic science that underlies surgical practice. The journal publishes original articles, scientific reviews, editorials and invited commentary, abstracts and selected articles from international journals, and occasional international bibliographies in craniofacial surgery.
期刊最新文献
Persistent and Recurrent Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: A Surgical Perspective on Overdiagnosis. Use of the Occipital Artery as a Recipient Artery in Free Flap Reconstruction of the Occipital Region. Global Prevalence and Patterns of Oral Health Disorders in Elite and Paralympic Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Evaluation of Intraoperative and Postoperative Complications in TMJ Arthrocentesis: A Clinical Retrospective Analysis. Intramuscular Compound Betamethasone for the Emergent Management of Lingual Angioedema.
×
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:604180095
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