The reliability of freely accessible, baseline, general-purpose large language model generated patient information for frequently asked questions on liver disease: a preliminary cross-sectional study.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology Pub Date : 2025-02-22 DOI:10.1080/17474124.2025.2471874
Madunil A Niriella, Pathum Premaratna, Mananjala Senanayake, Senerath Kodisinghe, Uditha Dassanayake, Anuradha Dassanayake, Dileepa S Ediriweera, H Janaka de Silva
{"title":"The reliability of freely accessible, baseline, general-purpose large language model generated patient information for frequently asked questions on liver disease: a preliminary cross-sectional study.","authors":"Madunil A Niriella, Pathum Premaratna, Mananjala Senanayake, Senerath Kodisinghe, Uditha Dassanayake, Anuradha Dassanayake, Dileepa S Ediriweera, H Janaka de Silva","doi":"10.1080/17474124.2025.2471874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We assessed the use of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini against human experts as sources of patient information.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>We compared the accuracy, completeness and quality of freely accessible, baseline, general-purpose LLM-generated responses to 20 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on liver disease, with those from two gastroenterologists, using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Three independent gastroenterologists blindly rated each response.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The expert and AI-generated responses displayed high mean scores across all domains, with no statistical difference between the groups for accuracy [H(2) = 0.421, <i>p</i> = 0.811], completeness [H(2) = 3.146, <i>p</i> = 0.207], or quality [H(2) = 3.350, <i>p</i> = 0.187]. We found no statistical difference between rank totals in accuracy [H(2) = 5.559, <i>p</i> = 0.062], completeness [H(2) = 0.104, <i>p</i> = 0.949], or quality [H(2) = 0.420, <i>p</i> = 0.810] between the three raters (R1, R2, R3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings outline the potential of freely accessible, baseline, general-purpose LLMs in providing reliable answers to FAQs on liver disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":12257,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2025.2471874","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We assessed the use of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini against human experts as sources of patient information.

Research design and methods: We compared the accuracy, completeness and quality of freely accessible, baseline, general-purpose LLM-generated responses to 20 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on liver disease, with those from two gastroenterologists, using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Three independent gastroenterologists blindly rated each response.

Results: The expert and AI-generated responses displayed high mean scores across all domains, with no statistical difference between the groups for accuracy [H(2) = 0.421, p = 0.811], completeness [H(2) = 3.146, p = 0.207], or quality [H(2) = 3.350, p = 0.187]. We found no statistical difference between rank totals in accuracy [H(2) = 5.559, p = 0.062], completeness [H(2) = 0.104, p = 0.949], or quality [H(2) = 0.420, p = 0.810] between the three raters (R1, R2, R3).

Conclusion: Our findings outline the potential of freely accessible, baseline, general-purpose LLMs in providing reliable answers to FAQs on liver disease.

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
Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The enormous health and economic burden of gastrointestinal disease worldwide warrants a sharp focus on the etiology, epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and development of new therapies. By the end of the last century we had seen enormous advances, both in technologies to visualize disease and in curative therapies in areas such as gastric ulcer, with the advent first of the H2-antagonists and then the proton pump inhibitors - clear examples of how advances in medicine can massively benefit the patient. Nevertheless, specialists face ongoing challenges from a wide array of diseases of diverse etiology.
期刊最新文献
A practical guide to dilating inflammatory bowel disease strictures. Arterial stiffness as a complication of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychosocial risks in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. The reliability of freely accessible, baseline, general-purpose large language model generated patient information for frequently asked questions on liver disease: a preliminary cross-sectional study. Endoscopic ultrasound guided liver biopsy and portal pressure gradient: when, why and how? Can it become the standard of care in endo-hepatology?
×
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