{"title":"Performance of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Responding to Patient Queries Related to Traumatic Dental Injuries: A Comparative Study.","authors":"Yeliz Guven, Omer Tarik Ozdemir, Melis Yazir Kavan","doi":"10.1111/edt.13020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have become increasingly prevalent in recent years as potential sources of online healthcare information for patients when making medical/dental decisions. This study assessed the readability, quality, and accuracy of responses provided by three AI chatbots to questions related to traumatic dental injuries (TDIs), either retrieved from popular question-answer sites or manually created based on the hypothetical case scenarios.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 59 traumatic injury queries were directed at ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Google Gemini. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) scores. To assess response quality and accuracy, the DISCERN tool, Global Quality Score (GQS), and misinformation scores were used. The understandability and actionability of the responses were analyzed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials (PEMAT-P) tool. Statistical analysis included Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn's post hoc test for non-normal variables, and one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test for normal variables (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean FKGL and FRE scores for ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Google Gemini were 11.2 and 49.25, 11.8 and 46.42, and 10.1 and 51.91, respectively, indicating that the responses were difficult to read and required a college-level reading ability. ChatGPT 3.5 had the lowest DISCERN and PEMAT-P understandability scores among the chatbots (p < 0.001). ChatGPT 4.0 and Google Gemini were rated higher for quality (GQS score of 5) compared to ChatGPT 3.5 (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, ChatGPT 3.5, although widely used, provided some misleading and inaccurate responses to questions about TDIs. In contrast, ChatGPT 4.0 and Google Gemini generated more accurate and comprehensive answers, making them more reliable as auxiliary information sources. However, for complex issues like TDIs, no chatbot can replace a dentist for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care.</p>","PeriodicalId":55180,"journal":{"name":"Dental Traumatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.13020","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/aim: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have become increasingly prevalent in recent years as potential sources of online healthcare information for patients when making medical/dental decisions. This study assessed the readability, quality, and accuracy of responses provided by three AI chatbots to questions related to traumatic dental injuries (TDIs), either retrieved from popular question-answer sites or manually created based on the hypothetical case scenarios.
Materials and methods: A total of 59 traumatic injury queries were directed at ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Google Gemini. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) scores. To assess response quality and accuracy, the DISCERN tool, Global Quality Score (GQS), and misinformation scores were used. The understandability and actionability of the responses were analyzed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials (PEMAT-P) tool. Statistical analysis included Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn's post hoc test for non-normal variables, and one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test for normal variables (p < 0.05).
Results: The mean FKGL and FRE scores for ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Google Gemini were 11.2 and 49.25, 11.8 and 46.42, and 10.1 and 51.91, respectively, indicating that the responses were difficult to read and required a college-level reading ability. ChatGPT 3.5 had the lowest DISCERN and PEMAT-P understandability scores among the chatbots (p < 0.001). ChatGPT 4.0 and Google Gemini were rated higher for quality (GQS score of 5) compared to ChatGPT 3.5 (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: In this study, ChatGPT 3.5, although widely used, provided some misleading and inaccurate responses to questions about TDIs. In contrast, ChatGPT 4.0 and Google Gemini generated more accurate and comprehensive answers, making them more reliable as auxiliary information sources. However, for complex issues like TDIs, no chatbot can replace a dentist for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care.
期刊介绍：
Dental Traumatology is an international journal that aims to convey scientific and clinical progress in all areas related to adult and pediatric dental traumatology. This includes the following topics:
- Epidemiology, Social Aspects, Education, Diagnostics
- Esthetics / Prosthetics/ Restorative
- Evidence Based Traumatology & Study Design
- Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery/Transplant/Implant
- Pediatrics and Orthodontics
- Prevention and Sports Dentistry
- Endodontics and Periodontal Aspects
The journal"s aim is to promote communication among clinicians, educators, researchers, and others interested in the field of dental traumatology.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
