Assessment and comparison of artificial intelligence–generated information regarding shoulder arthroplasty from multiple interfaces

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-17 DOI:10.1016/j.jse.2024.12.048
Suhasini Gupta BS , Brett D. Haislup MD , Anisha Tyagi BS , Suleiman Y. Sudah MD , Ryan A. Hoffman MD , Anand M. Murthi MD
{"title":"Assessment and comparison of artificial intelligence–generated information regarding shoulder arthroplasty from multiple interfaces","authors":"Suhasini Gupta BS ,&nbsp;Brett D. Haislup MD ,&nbsp;Anisha Tyagi BS ,&nbsp;Suleiman Y. Sudah MD ,&nbsp;Ryan A. Hoffman MD ,&nbsp;Anand M. Murthi MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jse.2024.12.048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>This study aims to analyze and compare the quality, accuracy, and readability of information regarding anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty<span> (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) provided by various AI interfaces (Open AI’s ChatGPT and Microsoft’s CoPilot).</span></div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Thirty commonly asked questions (categorized by Rothwell criteria into Fact, Policy, and Value) by patients were inputted into ChatGPT 3.5 and CoPilot. Responses were assessed with the DISCERN scale, <em>Journal of the American Medical Association</em> (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). The sources of citations provided by CoPilot were further analyzed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Both AI interfaces generated DISCERN scores &gt;50 (aTSA and rTSA ChatGPT: 57 [Fact], 61 [Policy], 58 [Value]; aTSA and rTSA CoPilot: 68 [Fact], 72 [Policy], 70 [Value]), demonstrating “good” quality of information provided, except for the Policy questions by CoPilot, which were scored as “excellent” (&gt;70). CoPilot's higher JAMA score (3 vs. 0) and FRES scores &gt;30 indicated more reliable, accessible responses, which required a minimum of 12th-grade education to read the same. In comparison, the ChatGPT generated more complex texts, with the majority of the FRES scores &lt;20, and FKGL score signifying complexity of academic level text. Finally, CoPilot provided citations and demonstrated the highest percentage of academic sources (31.1% for rTSA and 26.7% for aTSA), suggesting reliable sources of information.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div><span>Overall, the information provided by both AI interfaces ChatGPT and CoPilot was scored as a “good” source of information for commonly asked patient questions regarding shoulder arthroplasty. But the answers to questions pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty provided by CoPilot proved to be more reliable (</span><em>P</em> = .0061), less complex, easier to read (<em>P</em> = .0031), and referenced information from reliable resources including academic sources, journal articles, and medical sites. Although answers provided by CoPilot were “easier” to read, they still required a 12th-grade education, which may be too complex for most patients, posing a challenge for patient comprehension. There were a substantial amount of nonmedical media sites, and commercial sources that were cited for both aTSA and rTSA questions by CoPilot. Critically, answers from both AI interfaces should serve as supplementary resources rather than primary sources on perioperative conditions pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50051,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","volume":"34 9","pages":"Pages 2216-2223"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1058274625001399","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

This study aims to analyze and compare the quality, accuracy, and readability of information regarding anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) provided by various AI interfaces (Open AI’s ChatGPT and Microsoft’s CoPilot).

Methods

Thirty commonly asked questions (categorized by Rothwell criteria into Fact, Policy, and Value) by patients were inputted into ChatGPT 3.5 and CoPilot. Responses were assessed with the DISCERN scale, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). The sources of citations provided by CoPilot were further analyzed.

Results

Both AI interfaces generated DISCERN scores >50 (aTSA and rTSA ChatGPT: 57 [Fact], 61 [Policy], 58 [Value]; aTSA and rTSA CoPilot: 68 [Fact], 72 [Policy], 70 [Value]), demonstrating “good” quality of information provided, except for the Policy questions by CoPilot, which were scored as “excellent” (>70). CoPilot's higher JAMA score (3 vs. 0) and FRES scores >30 indicated more reliable, accessible responses, which required a minimum of 12th-grade education to read the same. In comparison, the ChatGPT generated more complex texts, with the majority of the FRES scores <20, and FKGL score signifying complexity of academic level text. Finally, CoPilot provided citations and demonstrated the highest percentage of academic sources (31.1% for rTSA and 26.7% for aTSA), suggesting reliable sources of information.

Conclusion

Overall, the information provided by both AI interfaces ChatGPT and CoPilot was scored as a “good” source of information for commonly asked patient questions regarding shoulder arthroplasty. But the answers to questions pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty provided by CoPilot proved to be more reliable (P = .0061), less complex, easier to read (P = .0031), and referenced information from reliable resources including academic sources, journal articles, and medical sites. Although answers provided by CoPilot were “easier” to read, they still required a 12th-grade education, which may be too complex for most patients, posing a challenge for patient comprehension. There were a substantial amount of nonmedical media sites, and commercial sources that were cited for both aTSA and rTSA questions by CoPilot. Critically, answers from both AI interfaces should serve as supplementary resources rather than primary sources on perioperative conditions pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty.
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
评估和比较人工智能从多个界面生成的有关肩关节置换术的信息。
目的:本研究旨在分析和比较各种人工智能接口(Open AI的ChatGPT和Microsoft的Copilot)提供的解剖性全肩关节置换术(aTSA)和反向全肩关节置换术(rTSA)信息的质量、准确性和可读性。方法:将患者提出的30个常见问题(按Rothwell标准分为Fact、Policy和Value)输入ChatGPT 3.5和Copilot。采用DISCERN量表、JAMA基准标准、Flesch-Kincaid阅读难度评分(FRES)和年级水平(FKGL)对反应进行评估。进一步分析了CoPilot提供的引文来源。结果:两个AI界面生成的DISCERN分数为bbb50 (aTSA和rTSA ChatGPT 57 (Fact), 61 (Policy), 58 (Value), aTSA和rTSA Copilot 68 (Fact), 72 (Policy), 70 (Value)),表明所提供的信息质量“良好”,除了Copilot的政策问题被评为“优秀”(>70)。CoPilot的JAMA得分较高(3比0),FRES得分高于30,表明其回答更可靠、更容易理解,这需要至少接受过12年级教育才能阅读相同的内容。相比之下,ChatGPT生成的文本更复杂,FRES得分占大多数。结论:总体而言,ChatGPT和CoPilot提供的人工智能界面提供的信息被评为“良好”的信息来源,用于回答患者关于肩关节置换术的常见问题。但是,CoPilot提供的有关肩关节置换术的问题的答案被证明更可靠(p=0.0061),更简单,更容易阅读(p=0.0031),并且参考了来自可靠资源的信息,包括学术来源,期刊文章和医学网站。虽然CoPilot提供的答案“更容易”阅读,但它们仍然需要12年级的教育水平,这对大多数患者来说可能过于复杂,对患者的理解构成了挑战。CoPilot在回答aTSA和rTSA的问题时,引用了大量的非医疗媒体网站和商业来源。关键的是,这两个人工智能界面的答案应该作为补充资源,而不是关于肩关节置换术围手术期情况的主要来源。
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
6.50
自引率
23.30%
发文量
604
审稿时长
11.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The official publication for eight leading specialty organizations, this authoritative journal is the only publication to focus exclusively on medical, surgical, and physical techniques for treating injury/disease of the upper extremity, including the shoulder girdle, arm, and elbow. Clinically oriented and peer-reviewed, the Journal provides an international forum for the exchange of information on new techniques, instruments, and materials. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery features vivid photos, professional illustrations, and explicit diagrams that demonstrate surgical approaches and depict implant devices. Topics covered include fractures, dislocations, diseases and injuries of the rotator cuff, imaging techniques, arthritis, arthroscopy, arthroplasty, and rehabilitation.
期刊最新文献
Muscle activation variability in relation to functional internal rotation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for rotator cuff repair surgery Functional and radiographic outcomes after surgical management of complex proximal ulna fractures: a retrospective case series Pyrolytic carbon head hemiarthroplasty vs. cobalt-chromium head for proximal humerus fractures: a short-term follow-up study Incidence and risk factors for aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty using the Aramis implant baseplate with a minimum of 2 years follow-up
×
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