Assessing the clinical support capabilities of ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini in managing lumbar disc herniation.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL European Journal of Medical Research Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1186/s40001-025-02296-x
Suning Wang, Ying Wang, Linlin Jiang, Yong Chang, Shiji Zhang, Kun Zhao, Lu Chen, Chunzheng Gao
{"title":"Assessing the clinical support capabilities of ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini in managing lumbar disc herniation.","authors":"Suning Wang, Ying Wang, Linlin Jiang, Yong Chang, Shiji Zhang, Kun Zhao, Lu Chen, Chunzheng Gao","doi":"10.1186/s40001-025-02296-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study evaluated and compared the clinical support capabilities of ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini in diagnosing and treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH) with radiculopathy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-one questions (across 5 categories) from NASS Clinical Guidelines were input into ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini. Five orthopedic surgeons assessed their responses using a 5-point Likert scale for accuracy and completeness, and a 7-point scale for reliability. Flesch Reading Ease scores were calculated to assess readability. Additionally, ChatGPT 4o analyzed lumbar images from 53 patients, comparing its recognizable agreement with orthopedic surgeons using Kappa values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both models demonstrated strong clinical support capabilities with no significant differences in accuracy or reliability. However, ChatGPT 4o provided more comprehensive and consistent responses. The Flesch Reading Ease scores for both models indicated that their generated content was \"very difficult to read,\" potentially limiting patient accessibility. In evaluating lumbar disc herniation images, ChatGPT 4o achieved an overall accuracy of 0.81, with LDH recognition precision, recall, and F1 scores exceeding 0.80. The AUC was 0.80, and the Kappa value was 0.61, indicating moderate agreement between the model's predictions and actual diagnoses, though with room for improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While both models are effective, ChatGPT 4o offers more comprehensive clinical responses, making it more suitable for high-integrity medical tasks. However, the difficulty in reading AI-generated content and occasional use of misleading terms, such as \"tumor,\" indicate a need for further improvements to reduce patient anxiety.</p>","PeriodicalId":11949,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Medical Research","volume":"30 1","pages":"45"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11753088/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-025-02296-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated and compared the clinical support capabilities of ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini in diagnosing and treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH) with radiculopathy.

Methods: Twenty-one questions (across 5 categories) from NASS Clinical Guidelines were input into ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini. Five orthopedic surgeons assessed their responses using a 5-point Likert scale for accuracy and completeness, and a 7-point scale for reliability. Flesch Reading Ease scores were calculated to assess readability. Additionally, ChatGPT 4o analyzed lumbar images from 53 patients, comparing its recognizable agreement with orthopedic surgeons using Kappa values.

Results: Both models demonstrated strong clinical support capabilities with no significant differences in accuracy or reliability. However, ChatGPT 4o provided more comprehensive and consistent responses. The Flesch Reading Ease scores for both models indicated that their generated content was "very difficult to read," potentially limiting patient accessibility. In evaluating lumbar disc herniation images, ChatGPT 4o achieved an overall accuracy of 0.81, with LDH recognition precision, recall, and F1 scores exceeding 0.80. The AUC was 0.80, and the Kappa value was 0.61, indicating moderate agreement between the model's predictions and actual diagnoses, though with room for improvement.

Conclusion: While both models are effective, ChatGPT 4o offers more comprehensive clinical responses, making it more suitable for high-integrity medical tasks. However, the difficulty in reading AI-generated content and occasional use of misleading terms, such as "tumor," indicate a need for further improvements to reduce patient anxiety.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Medical Research
European Journal of Medical Research 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
247
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Medical Research publishes translational and clinical research of international interest across all medical disciplines, enabling clinicians and other researchers to learn about developments and innovations within these disciplines and across the boundaries between disciplines. The journal publishes high quality research and reviews and aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted research are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
Clinical and laboratory characteristics of neurosyphilis: analysis of symptoms and risk factors. Application of plasma cell-free DNA in screening of advanced colorectal adenoma. Clinical study on the effects of over time window thrombectomy and thrombolytic therapy on granulocyte colony-stimulating factor expression and postoperative brain function after acute cerebral infarction. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography consultation after digestive tract reconstruction and risk factors for complications. Evaluating dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for differentiating HER2-zero, HER2-low, and HER2-positive breast cancers in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
×
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