Daniel Soroudi, Aileen Gozali, Jacquelyn A Knox, Nisha Parmeshwar, Ryan Sadjadi, Jasmin C Wilson, Seung Ah Lee, Merisa L Piper
{"title":"比较医护人员和 ChatGPT 对电子健康记录中乳房再造患者问题的回答。","authors":"Daniel Soroudi, Aileen Gozali, Jacquelyn A Knox, Nisha Parmeshwar, Ryan Sadjadi, Jasmin C Wilson, Seung Ah Lee, Merisa L Piper","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-directed Electronic Health Record (EHR) messaging is used as an adjunct to enhance patient-physician interactions but further burdens the physician. There is a need for clear electronic patient communication in all aspects of medicine, including plastic surgery. We can potentially utilize innovative communication tools like ChatGPT. This study assesses ChatGPT's effectiveness in answering breast reconstruction queries, comparing its accuracy, empathy, and readability with healthcare providers' responses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten deidentified questions regarding breast reconstruction were extracted from electronic messages. They were presented to ChatGPT3, ChatGPT4, plastic surgeons, and advanced practice providers for response. ChatGPT3 and ChatGPT4 were also prompted to give brief responses. Using 1-5 Likert scoring, accuracy and empathy were graded by 2 plastic surgeons and medical students, respectively. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease. Grades were compared using 2-tailed t tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Combined provider responses had better Flesch Reading Ease scores compared to all combined chatbot responses (53.3 ± 13.3 vs 36.0 ± 11.6, P < 0.001) and combined brief chatbot responses (53.3 ± 13.3 vs 34.7 ± 12.8, P < 0.001). Empathy scores were higher in all combined chatbot than in those from combined providers (2.9 ± 0.8 vs 2.0 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in accuracy between combined providers and all combined chatbot responses (4.3 ± 0.9 vs 4.5 ± 0.6, P = 0.170) or combined brief chatbot responses (4.3 ± 0.9 vs 4.6 ± 0.6, P = 0.128).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Amid the time constraints and complexities of plastic surgery decision making, our study underscores ChatGPT's potential to enhance patient communication. ChatGPT excels in empathy and accuracy, yet its readability presents limitations that should be addressed.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":"93 5","pages":"541-545"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Provider and ChatGPT Responses to Breast Reconstruction Patient Questions in the Electronic Health Record.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Soroudi, Aileen Gozali, Jacquelyn A Knox, Nisha Parmeshwar, Ryan Sadjadi, Jasmin C Wilson, Seung Ah Lee, Merisa L Piper\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-directed Electronic Health Record (EHR) messaging is used as an adjunct to enhance patient-physician interactions but further burdens the physician. There is a need for clear electronic patient communication in all aspects of medicine, including plastic surgery. We can potentially utilize innovative communication tools like ChatGPT. This study assesses ChatGPT's effectiveness in answering breast reconstruction queries, comparing its accuracy, empathy, and readability with healthcare providers' responses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten deidentified questions regarding breast reconstruction were extracted from electronic messages. They were presented to ChatGPT3, ChatGPT4, plastic surgeons, and advanced practice providers for response. ChatGPT3 and ChatGPT4 were also prompted to give brief responses. Using 1-5 Likert scoring, accuracy and empathy were graded by 2 plastic surgeons and medical students, respectively. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease. Grades were compared using 2-tailed t tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Combined provider responses had better Flesch Reading Ease scores compared to all combined chatbot responses (53.3 ± 13.3 vs 36.0 ± 11.6, P < 0.001) and combined brief chatbot responses (53.3 ± 13.3 vs 34.7 ± 12.8, P < 0.001). Empathy scores were higher in all combined chatbot than in those from combined providers (2.9 ± 0.8 vs 2.0 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in accuracy between combined providers and all combined chatbot responses (4.3 ± 0.9 vs 4.5 ± 0.6, P = 0.170) or combined brief chatbot responses (4.3 ± 0.9 vs 4.6 ± 0.6, P = 0.128).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Amid the time constraints and complexities of plastic surgery decision making, our study underscores ChatGPT's potential to enhance patient communication. ChatGPT excels in empathy and accuracy, yet its readability presents limitations that should be addressed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"93 5\",\"pages\":\"541-545\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004090\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004090","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing Provider and ChatGPT Responses to Breast Reconstruction Patient Questions in the Electronic Health Record.
Background: Patient-directed Electronic Health Record (EHR) messaging is used as an adjunct to enhance patient-physician interactions but further burdens the physician. There is a need for clear electronic patient communication in all aspects of medicine, including plastic surgery. We can potentially utilize innovative communication tools like ChatGPT. This study assesses ChatGPT's effectiveness in answering breast reconstruction queries, comparing its accuracy, empathy, and readability with healthcare providers' responses.
Methods: Ten deidentified questions regarding breast reconstruction were extracted from electronic messages. They were presented to ChatGPT3, ChatGPT4, plastic surgeons, and advanced practice providers for response. ChatGPT3 and ChatGPT4 were also prompted to give brief responses. Using 1-5 Likert scoring, accuracy and empathy were graded by 2 plastic surgeons and medical students, respectively. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease. Grades were compared using 2-tailed t tests.
Results: Combined provider responses had better Flesch Reading Ease scores compared to all combined chatbot responses (53.3 ± 13.3 vs 36.0 ± 11.6, P < 0.001) and combined brief chatbot responses (53.3 ± 13.3 vs 34.7 ± 12.8, P < 0.001). Empathy scores were higher in all combined chatbot than in those from combined providers (2.9 ± 0.8 vs 2.0 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in accuracy between combined providers and all combined chatbot responses (4.3 ± 0.9 vs 4.5 ± 0.6, P = 0.170) or combined brief chatbot responses (4.3 ± 0.9 vs 4.6 ± 0.6, P = 0.128).
Conclusions: Amid the time constraints and complexities of plastic surgery decision making, our study underscores ChatGPT's potential to enhance patient communication. ChatGPT excels in empathy and accuracy, yet its readability presents limitations that should be addressed.
期刊介绍:
The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.