评估个性化医疗信息中的生成语言模型:工具验证研究

JMIR AI Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.2196/54371
Aidin Spina, Saman Andalib, Daniel Flores, Rishi Vermani, Faris F Halaseh, Ariana M Nelson
{"title":"评估个性化医疗信息中的生成语言模型:工具验证研究","authors":"Aidin Spina, Saman Andalib, Daniel Flores, Rishi Vermani, Faris F Halaseh, Ariana M Nelson","doi":"10.2196/54371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although uncertainties exist regarding implementation, artificial intelligence-driven generative language models (GLMs) have enormous potential in medicine. Deployment of GLMs could improve patient comprehension of clinical texts and improve low health literacy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this study is to evaluate the potential of ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to tailor the complexity of medical information to patient-specific input education level, which is crucial if it is to serve as a tool in addressing low health literacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Input templates related to 2 prevalent chronic diseases-type II diabetes and hypertension-were designed. Each clinical vignette was adjusted for hypothetical patient education levels to evaluate output personalization. To assess the success of a GLM (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) in tailoring output writing, the readability of pre- and posttransformation outputs were quantified using the Flesch reading ease score (FKRE) and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses (n=80) were generated using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across 2 clinical vignettes. For GPT-3.5, FKRE means were 57.75 (SD 4.75), 51.28 (SD 5.14), 32.28 (SD 4.52), and 28.31 (SD 5.22) for 6th grade, 8th grade, high school, and bachelor's, respectively; FKGL mean scores were 9.08 (SD 0.90), 10.27 (SD 1.06), 13.4 (SD 0.80), and 13.74 (SD 1.18). GPT-3.5 only aligned with the prespecified education levels at the bachelor's degree. Conversely, GPT-4's FKRE mean scores were 74.54 (SD 2.6), 71.25 (SD 4.96), 47.61 (SD 6.13), and 13.71 (SD 5.77), with FKGL mean scores of 6.3 (SD 0.73), 6.7 (SD 1.11), 11.09 (SD 1.26), and 17.03 (SD 1.11) for the same respective education levels. GPT-4 met the target readability for all groups except the 6th-grade FKRE average. Both GLMs produced outputs with statistically significant differences (P<.001; 8th grade P<.001; high school P<.001; bachelors P=.003; FKGL: 6th grade P=.001; 8th grade P<.001; high school P<.001; bachelors P<.001) between mean FKRE and FKGL across input education levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GLMs can change the structure and readability of medical text outputs according to input-specified education. However, GLMs categorize input education designation into 3 broad tiers of output readability: easy (6th and 8th grade), medium (high school), and difficult (bachelor's degree). This is the first result to suggest that there are broader boundaries in the success of GLMs in output text simplification. Future research must establish how GLMs can reliably personalize medical texts to prespecified education levels to enable a broader impact on health care literacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":73551,"journal":{"name":"JMIR AI","volume":"3 ","pages":"e54371"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11350306/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Generative Language Models in Personalizing Medical Information: Instrument Validation Study.\",\"authors\":\"Aidin Spina, Saman Andalib, Daniel Flores, Rishi Vermani, Faris F Halaseh, Ariana M Nelson\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/54371\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although uncertainties exist regarding implementation, artificial intelligence-driven generative language models (GLMs) have enormous potential in medicine. Deployment of GLMs could improve patient comprehension of clinical texts and improve low health literacy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this study is to evaluate the potential of ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to tailor the complexity of medical information to patient-specific input education level, which is crucial if it is to serve as a tool in addressing low health literacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Input templates related to 2 prevalent chronic diseases-type II diabetes and hypertension-were designed. Each clinical vignette was adjusted for hypothetical patient education levels to evaluate output personalization. To assess the success of a GLM (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) in tailoring output writing, the readability of pre- and posttransformation outputs were quantified using the Flesch reading ease score (FKRE) and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses (n=80) were generated using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across 2 clinical vignettes. For GPT-3.5, FKRE means were 57.75 (SD 4.75), 51.28 (SD 5.14), 32.28 (SD 4.52), and 28.31 (SD 5.22) for 6th grade, 8th grade, high school, and bachelor's, respectively; FKGL mean scores were 9.08 (SD 0.90), 10.27 (SD 1.06), 13.4 (SD 0.80), and 13.74 (SD 1.18). GPT-3.5 only aligned with the prespecified education levels at the bachelor's degree. Conversely, GPT-4's FKRE mean scores were 74.54 (SD 2.6), 71.25 (SD 4.96), 47.61 (SD 6.13), and 13.71 (SD 5.77), with FKGL mean scores of 6.3 (SD 0.73), 6.7 (SD 1.11), 11.09 (SD 1.26), and 17.03 (SD 1.11) for the same respective education levels. GPT-4 met the target readability for all groups except the 6th-grade FKRE average. Both GLMs produced outputs with statistically significant differences (P<.001; 8th grade P<.001; high school P<.001; bachelors P=.003; FKGL: 6th grade P=.001; 8th grade P<.001; high school P<.001; bachelors P<.001) between mean FKRE and FKGL across input education levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GLMs can change the structure and readability of medical text outputs according to input-specified education. However, GLMs categorize input education designation into 3 broad tiers of output readability: easy (6th and 8th grade), medium (high school), and difficult (bachelor's degree). This is the first result to suggest that there are broader boundaries in the success of GLMs in output text simplification. Future research must establish how GLMs can reliably personalize medical texts to prespecified education levels to enable a broader impact on health care literacy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR AI\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"e54371\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11350306/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR AI\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/54371\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR AI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/54371","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管人工智能驱动的生成语言模型(GLMs)在实施方面还存在不确定性,但它在医学领域有着巨大的潜力。部署 GLMs 可以提高患者对临床文本的理解能力,改善低健康素养状况:本研究的目的是评估 ChatGPT-3.5 和 GPT-4 根据患者特定的输入教育水平调整医疗信息复杂度的潜力,如果要将其作为解决低健康素养问题的工具,这一点至关重要:方法:设计了与两种常见慢性疾病(II 型糖尿病和高血压)相关的输入模板。每个临床案例都根据假设的患者教育水平进行了调整,以评估输出的个性化程度。为了评估 GLM(GPT-3.5 和 GPT-4)在定制输出写作方面的成功率,使用弗莱什阅读难易度评分(FKRE)和弗莱什-金凯德等级评分(FKGL)对转换前和转换后输出的可读性进行了量化:使用 GPT-3.5 和 GPT-4 在 2 个临床案例中生成了反应(n=80)。对于 GPT-3.5,六年级、八年级、高中和本科生的 FKRE 平均分分别为 57.75(标清 4.75)、51.28(标清 5.14)、32.28(标清 4.52)和 28.31(标清 5.22);FKGL 平均分分别为 9.08(标清 0.90)、10.27(标清 1.06)、13.4(标清 0.80)和 13.74(标清 1.18)。GPT-3.5 仅与预设的学士学位教育水平一致。相反,GPT-4 的 FKRE 平均分分别为 74.54 (SD 2.6)、71.25 (SD 4.96)、47.61 (SD 6.13) 和 13.71 (SD 5.77),FKGL 平均分分别为 6.3 (SD 0.73)、6.7 (SD 1.11)、11.09 (SD 1.26) 和 17.03 (SD 1.11),与各自的教育程度相同。除六年级 FKRE 平均值外,所有组别的 GPT-4 都达到了可读性目标。两个 GLM 的输出结果在统计上都有显著差异(PC 结论:GLM 可以根据输入指定的教育程度改变医学文本输出的结构和可读性。然而,GLMs 将输入的教育指定分为三大输出可读性等级:简单(六年级和八年级)、中等(高中)和困难(学士学位)。这是第一个表明 GLMs 在输出文本简化方面的成功存在更广泛界限的结果。未来的研究必须确定 GLMs 如何能根据预设的教育水平可靠地个性化医疗文本,从而对医疗保健素养产生更广泛的影响。
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
Evaluation of Generative Language Models in Personalizing Medical Information: Instrument Validation Study.

Background: Although uncertainties exist regarding implementation, artificial intelligence-driven generative language models (GLMs) have enormous potential in medicine. Deployment of GLMs could improve patient comprehension of clinical texts and improve low health literacy.

Objective: The goal of this study is to evaluate the potential of ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to tailor the complexity of medical information to patient-specific input education level, which is crucial if it is to serve as a tool in addressing low health literacy.

Methods: Input templates related to 2 prevalent chronic diseases-type II diabetes and hypertension-were designed. Each clinical vignette was adjusted for hypothetical patient education levels to evaluate output personalization. To assess the success of a GLM (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) in tailoring output writing, the readability of pre- and posttransformation outputs were quantified using the Flesch reading ease score (FKRE) and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL).

Results: Responses (n=80) were generated using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across 2 clinical vignettes. For GPT-3.5, FKRE means were 57.75 (SD 4.75), 51.28 (SD 5.14), 32.28 (SD 4.52), and 28.31 (SD 5.22) for 6th grade, 8th grade, high school, and bachelor's, respectively; FKGL mean scores were 9.08 (SD 0.90), 10.27 (SD 1.06), 13.4 (SD 0.80), and 13.74 (SD 1.18). GPT-3.5 only aligned with the prespecified education levels at the bachelor's degree. Conversely, GPT-4's FKRE mean scores were 74.54 (SD 2.6), 71.25 (SD 4.96), 47.61 (SD 6.13), and 13.71 (SD 5.77), with FKGL mean scores of 6.3 (SD 0.73), 6.7 (SD 1.11), 11.09 (SD 1.26), and 17.03 (SD 1.11) for the same respective education levels. GPT-4 met the target readability for all groups except the 6th-grade FKRE average. Both GLMs produced outputs with statistically significant differences (P<.001; 8th grade P<.001; high school P<.001; bachelors P=.003; FKGL: 6th grade P=.001; 8th grade P<.001; high school P<.001; bachelors P<.001) between mean FKRE and FKGL across input education levels.

Conclusions: GLMs can change the structure and readability of medical text outputs according to input-specified education. However, GLMs categorize input education designation into 3 broad tiers of output readability: easy (6th and 8th grade), medium (high school), and difficult (bachelor's degree). This is the first result to suggest that there are broader boundaries in the success of GLMs in output text simplification. Future research must establish how GLMs can reliably personalize medical texts to prespecified education levels to enable a broader impact on health care literacy.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ensuring Appropriate Representation in Artificial Intelligence-Generated Medical Imagery: Protocol for a Methodological Approach to Address Skin Tone Bias. How Explainable Artificial Intelligence Can Increase or Decrease Clinicians' Trust in AI Applications in Health Care: Systematic Review. Targeting COVID-19 and Human Resources for Health News Information Extraction: Algorithm Development and Validation. Understanding AI's Role in Endometriosis Patient Education and Evaluating Its Information and Accuracy: Systematic Review. Identifying Marijuana Use Behaviors Among Youth Experiencing Homelessness Using a Machine Learning-Based Framework: Development and Evaluation 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