ChatGPT 对梅尼埃病常见问题的回答:与临床实践指南答案的比较。

IF 1.8 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY OTO Open Pub Date : 2024-07-05 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1002/oto2.163
Rebecca A Ho, Ariana L Shaari, Paul T Cowan, Kenneth Yan
{"title":"ChatGPT 对梅尼埃病常见问题的回答:与临床实践指南答案的比较。","authors":"Rebecca A Ho, Ariana L Shaari, Paul T Cowan, Kenneth Yan","doi":"10.1002/oto2.163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Evaluate the quality of responses from Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) models compared to the answers for \"Frequently Asked Questions\" (FAQs) from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for Ménière's disease (MD).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Comparative analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The AAO-HNS CPG for MD includes FAQs that clinicians can give to patients for MD-related questions. The ability of ChatGPT to properly educate patients regarding MD is unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 were each prompted with 16 questions from the MD FAQs. Each response was rated in terms of (1) comprehensiveness, (2) extensiveness, (3) presence of misleading information, and (4) quality of resources. Readability was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT-3.5 was comprehensive in 5 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 was comprehensive in 9 (31.3% vs 56.3%, <i>P</i> = .2852). ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 were extensive in all responses (<i>P</i> = 1.0000). ChatGPT-3.5 was misleading in 5 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 was misleading in 3 (31.3% vs 18.75%, <i>P</i> = .6851). ChatGPT-3.5 had quality resources in 10 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 had quality resources in 16 (62.5% vs 100%, <i>P</i> = .0177). AAO-HNS CPG FRES (62.4 ± 16.6) demonstrated an appropriate readability score of at least 60, while both ChatGPT-3.5 (39.1 ± 7.3) and 4.0 (42.8 ± 8.5) failed to meet this standard. All platforms had FKGL means that exceeded the recommended level of 6 or lower.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While ChatGPT-4.0 had significantly better resource reporting, both models have room for improvement in being more comprehensive, more readable, and less misleading for patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":19697,"journal":{"name":"OTO Open","volume":"8 3","pages":"e163"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11225079/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT Responses to Frequently Asked Questions on Ménière's Disease: A Comparison to Clinical Practice Guideline Answers.\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca A Ho, Ariana L Shaari, Paul T Cowan, Kenneth Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/oto2.163\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Evaluate the quality of responses from Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) models compared to the answers for \\\"Frequently Asked Questions\\\" (FAQs) from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for Ménière's disease (MD).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Comparative analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The AAO-HNS CPG for MD includes FAQs that clinicians can give to patients for MD-related questions. The ability of ChatGPT to properly educate patients regarding MD is unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 were each prompted with 16 questions from the MD FAQs. Each response was rated in terms of (1) comprehensiveness, (2) extensiveness, (3) presence of misleading information, and (4) quality of resources. Readability was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT-3.5 was comprehensive in 5 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 was comprehensive in 9 (31.3% vs 56.3%, <i>P</i> = .2852). ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 were extensive in all responses (<i>P</i> = 1.0000). ChatGPT-3.5 was misleading in 5 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 was misleading in 3 (31.3% vs 18.75%, <i>P</i> = .6851). ChatGPT-3.5 had quality resources in 10 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 had quality resources in 16 (62.5% vs 100%, <i>P</i> = .0177). AAO-HNS CPG FRES (62.4 ± 16.6) demonstrated an appropriate readability score of at least 60, while both ChatGPT-3.5 (39.1 ± 7.3) and 4.0 (42.8 ± 8.5) failed to meet this standard. All platforms had FKGL means that exceeded the recommended level of 6 or lower.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While ChatGPT-4.0 had significantly better resource reporting, both models have room for improvement in being more comprehensive, more readable, and less misleading for patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"OTO Open\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"e163\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11225079/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"OTO Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/oto2.163\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OTO Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/oto2.163","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:评估聊天生成预训练变换器(ChatGPT)模型与美国耳鼻喉科学会 "常见问题"(FAQ)答案的对比质量:与美国耳鼻咽喉头颈外科学会(AAO-HNS)梅尼埃病(MD)临床实践指南(CPG)中 "常见问题"(FAQ)的答案相比,评估聊天生成预训练变换器(ChatGPT)模型的回答质量:比较分析:AAO-HNS 的梅尼埃病临床实践指南(CPG)包括常见问题解答,临床医生可以向患者解答与梅尼埃病相关的问题。目前尚不清楚 ChatGPT 能否正确教育患者有关 MD 的知识:方法:ChatGPT-3.5 和 4.0 分别使用了医学发展常见问题解答中的 16 个问题。每个回答都根据以下方面进行评分:(1) 全面性;(2) 广泛性;(3) 是否存在误导性信息;(4) 资源质量。可读性采用 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) 和 Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) 进行评估:结果:ChatGPT-3.5 在 5 个回答中是全面的,而 ChatGPT-4.0 在 9 个回答中是全面的(31.3% vs 56.3%,P = .2852)。ChatGPT-3.5 和 4.0 在所有回答中都具有广泛性(P = 1.0000)。ChatGPT-3.5 在 5 个回复中具有误导性,而 ChatGPT-4.0 在 3 个回复中具有误导性(31.3% vs 18.75%,P = .6851)。ChatGPT-3.5 在 10 个回复中提供了优质资源,而 ChatGPT-4.0 在 16 个回复中提供了优质资源(62.5% vs 100%,P = .0177)。AAO-HNS CPG FRES(62.4 ± 16.6)的适当可读性得分至少为 60 分,而 ChatGPT-3.5 (39.1 ± 7.3) 和 4.0 (42.8 ± 8.5) 均未达到这一标准。所有平台的 FKGL 均值都超过了建议的 6 或更低水平:结论:虽然 ChatGPT-4.0 的资源报告明显更好,但这两个模型在更全面、更易读和减少对患者的误导方面仍有改进空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
ChatGPT Responses to Frequently Asked Questions on Ménière's Disease: A Comparison to Clinical Practice Guideline Answers.

Objective: Evaluate the quality of responses from Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) models compared to the answers for "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for Ménière's disease (MD).

Study design: Comparative analysis.

Setting: The AAO-HNS CPG for MD includes FAQs that clinicians can give to patients for MD-related questions. The ability of ChatGPT to properly educate patients regarding MD is unknown.

Methods: ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 were each prompted with 16 questions from the MD FAQs. Each response was rated in terms of (1) comprehensiveness, (2) extensiveness, (3) presence of misleading information, and (4) quality of resources. Readability was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES).

Results: ChatGPT-3.5 was comprehensive in 5 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 was comprehensive in 9 (31.3% vs 56.3%, P = .2852). ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 were extensive in all responses (P = 1.0000). ChatGPT-3.5 was misleading in 5 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 was misleading in 3 (31.3% vs 18.75%, P = .6851). ChatGPT-3.5 had quality resources in 10 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 had quality resources in 16 (62.5% vs 100%, P = .0177). AAO-HNS CPG FRES (62.4 ± 16.6) demonstrated an appropriate readability score of at least 60, while both ChatGPT-3.5 (39.1 ± 7.3) and 4.0 (42.8 ± 8.5) failed to meet this standard. All platforms had FKGL means that exceeded the recommended level of 6 or lower.

Conclusion: While ChatGPT-4.0 had significantly better resource reporting, both models have room for improvement in being more comprehensive, more readable, and less misleading for patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
OTO Open
OTO Open Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Effects of Music on Pain and Anxiety During Otolaryngology Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Impact of Language Barriers and Age on English Hearing Test App Accuracy for Polish Users. Epidemiology of Barbell Weightlifting-Related Head and Neck Injuries in the United States: A 10-Year Analysis of National Injury Data. Beyond Tobacco: Bridging Gaps in Social History Records for Tobacco-Free Nicotine Pouch Consumers. Clinical and Histological Differences Between Choanal Polyps in Children and Adults: A 15-Year Retrospective Study.
×
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