双子座在处理受创恒牙方面的准确性和一致性。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Dental Traumatology Pub Date : 2024-10-26 DOI:10.1111/edt.13004
Nicolas Dufey Portilla, Marc Garcia-Font, Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu, Paul V Abbott, Jose Antonio Gonzalez Sanchez, Francesc Abella
{"title":"双子座在处理受创恒牙方面的准确性和一致性。","authors":"Nicolas Dufey Portilla, Marc Garcia-Font, Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu, Paul V Abbott, Jose Antonio Gonzalez Sanchez, Francesc Abella","doi":"10.1111/edt.13004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this cross-sectional observational analytical study was to assess the accuracy and consistency of responses provided by Google Gemini (GG), a free-access high-performance multimodal large language model, to questions related to the European Society of Endodontology position statement on the management of traumatized permanent teeth (MTPT).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three academic endodontists developed a set of 99 yes/no questions covering all areas of the MTPT. Nine general dentists and 22 endodontic specialists evaluated these questions for clarity and comprehension through an iterative process. Two academic dental trauma experts categorized the knowledge required to answer each question into three levels. The three academic endodontists submitted the 99 questions to the GG, resulting in 297 responses, which were then assessed for accuracy and consistency. Accuracy was evaluated using the Wald binomial method, while the consistency of GG responses was assessed using the kappa-Fleiss coefficient with a confidence interval of 95%. A 5% significance level chi-squared test was used to evaluate the influence of question level of knowledge on accuracy and consistency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The responses generated by Gemini showed an overall moderate accuracy of 80.81%, with no significant differences found between the responses of the academic endodontists. Overall, high consistency (95.96%) was demonstrated, with no significant differences between GG responses across the three accounts. The analysis also revealed no correlation between question level of knowledge and accuracy or consistency, with no significant differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this study could significantly impact the potential use of Gemini as a free-access source of information for clinicians in the MTPT.</p>","PeriodicalId":55180,"journal":{"name":"Dental Traumatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy and Consistency of Gemini Responses Regarding the Management of Traumatized Permanent Teeth.\",\"authors\":\"Nicolas Dufey Portilla, Marc Garcia-Font, Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu, Paul V Abbott, Jose Antonio Gonzalez Sanchez, Francesc Abella\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/edt.13004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this cross-sectional observational analytical study was to assess the accuracy and consistency of responses provided by Google Gemini (GG), a free-access high-performance multimodal large language model, to questions related to the European Society of Endodontology position statement on the management of traumatized permanent teeth (MTPT).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three academic endodontists developed a set of 99 yes/no questions covering all areas of the MTPT. Nine general dentists and 22 endodontic specialists evaluated these questions for clarity and comprehension through an iterative process. Two academic dental trauma experts categorized the knowledge required to answer each question into three levels. The three academic endodontists submitted the 99 questions to the GG, resulting in 297 responses, which were then assessed for accuracy and consistency. Accuracy was evaluated using the Wald binomial method, while the consistency of GG responses was assessed using the kappa-Fleiss coefficient with a confidence interval of 95%. A 5% significance level chi-squared test was used to evaluate the influence of question level of knowledge on accuracy and consistency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The responses generated by Gemini showed an overall moderate accuracy of 80.81%, with no significant differences found between the responses of the academic endodontists. Overall, high consistency (95.96%) was demonstrated, with no significant differences between GG responses across the three accounts. The analysis also revealed no correlation between question level of knowledge and accuracy or consistency, with no significant differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this study could significantly impact the potential use of Gemini as a free-access source of information for clinicians in the MTPT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dental Traumatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dental Traumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.13004\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.13004","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究背景这项横断面观察分析研究旨在评估谷歌双子座(Google Gemini,一种免费访问的高性能多模态大语言模型)对欧洲牙髓病学会关于外伤恒牙管理(MTPT)的立场声明相关问题所做回答的准确性和一致性:三位学术牙髓病学家开发了一套 99 个 "是/否 "问题,涵盖了 MTPT 的所有领域。9 位普通牙科医生和 22 位牙髓病学专家通过迭代过程对这些问题的清晰度和理解力进行了评估。两位牙科创伤学术专家将回答每个问题所需的知识分为三个等级。三位牙髓病学专家将 99 个问题提交给 GG,得到了 297 个回答,然后对这些回答的准确性和一致性进行了评估。准确性采用沃尔德二项式法进行评估,而 GG 回答的一致性则采用卡帕-弗莱斯系数进行评估,置信区间为 95%。采用 5%显著性水平的卡方检验来评估问题的知识水平对准确性和一致性的影响:结果:Gemini 生成的回答总体准确率为 80.81%,处于中等水平,牙髓病学家的回答之间没有发现显著差异。总体而言,一致性较高(95.96%),三个账户的 GG 回答之间没有明显差异。分析还显示,问题的知识水平与准确性或一致性之间没有相关性,也没有显著差异:这项研究的结果可能会极大地影响双子座作为 MTPT 临床医生免费获取信息来源的潜在用途。
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
Accuracy and Consistency of Gemini Responses Regarding the Management of Traumatized Permanent Teeth.

Background: The aim of this cross-sectional observational analytical study was to assess the accuracy and consistency of responses provided by Google Gemini (GG), a free-access high-performance multimodal large language model, to questions related to the European Society of Endodontology position statement on the management of traumatized permanent teeth (MTPT).

Materials and methods: Three academic endodontists developed a set of 99 yes/no questions covering all areas of the MTPT. Nine general dentists and 22 endodontic specialists evaluated these questions for clarity and comprehension through an iterative process. Two academic dental trauma experts categorized the knowledge required to answer each question into three levels. The three academic endodontists submitted the 99 questions to the GG, resulting in 297 responses, which were then assessed for accuracy and consistency. Accuracy was evaluated using the Wald binomial method, while the consistency of GG responses was assessed using the kappa-Fleiss coefficient with a confidence interval of 95%. A 5% significance level chi-squared test was used to evaluate the influence of question level of knowledge on accuracy and consistency.

Results: The responses generated by Gemini showed an overall moderate accuracy of 80.81%, with no significant differences found between the responses of the academic endodontists. Overall, high consistency (95.96%) was demonstrated, with no significant differences between GG responses across the three accounts. The analysis also revealed no correlation between question level of knowledge and accuracy or consistency, with no significant differences.

Conclusions: The results of this study could significantly impact the potential use of Gemini as a free-access source of information for clinicians in the MTPT.

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
Dental Traumatology
Dental Traumatology 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
32.00%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Dental Traumatology is an international journal that aims to convey scientific and clinical progress in all areas related to adult and pediatric dental traumatology. This includes the following topics: - Epidemiology, Social Aspects, Education, Diagnostics - Esthetics / Prosthetics/ Restorative - Evidence Based Traumatology & Study Design - Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery/Transplant/Implant - Pediatrics and Orthodontics - Prevention and Sports Dentistry - Endodontics and Periodontal Aspects The journal"s aim is to promote communication among clinicians, educators, researchers, and others interested in the field of dental traumatology.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and Pattern of Traumatic Dental Injuries in Children and Adolescents With Severe to Profound Hearing Impairment: A Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Comparative Effectiveness of Regenerative Endodontic Treatment Versus Apexification for Necrotic Immature Permanent Teeth With or Without Apical Periodontitis: An Umbrella Review. Urban Violence and Maxillofacial Trauma: Sex Differences in a Cross-Sectional Study From Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The Calcium Hydroxide Controversy: Does Calcium Hydroxide Weaken Teeth? The Impact of Traumatic Dental Injury on the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life of Preschool Children: A Cross-Sectional 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