使用 ChatGPT 和 Google Gemini 回答正颌外科手术相关问题:比较研究。

IF 2.6 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.09.004
Ahmed A Abdel Aziz, Hams H Abdelrahman, Mohamed G Hassan
{"title":"使用 ChatGPT 和 Google Gemini 回答正颌外科手术相关问题:比较研究。","authors":"Ahmed A Abdel Aziz, Hams H Abdelrahman, Mohamed G Hassan","doi":"10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.09.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study employed a quantitative approach to compare the reliability of responses provided by ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Gemini in response to orthognathic surgery-related questions.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The authors adapted a set of 64 questions encompassing all of the domains and aspects related to orthognathic surgery. One author submitted the questions to ChatGPT3.5, ChatGPT4, and Google Gemini. The AI-generated responses from the three platforms were recorded and evaluated by 2 blinded and independent experts. The reliability of AI-generated responses was evaluated using a tool for accuracy of information and completeness. In addition, the provision of definitive answers to close-ended questions, references, graphical elements, and advice to schedule consultations with a specialist were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although ChatGPT-3.5 achieved the highest information reliability score, the 3 LLMs showed similar reliability scores in providing responses to orthognathic surgery-related inquiries. Moreover, Google Gemini significantly included physician recommendations and provided graphical elements. Both ChatGPT-3.5 and -4 lacked these features.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study shows that ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Gemini can provide reliable responses to inquires about orthognathic surgery. However, Google Gemini stood out by incorporating additional references and illustrations within its responses. These findings highlight the need for an additional evaluation of AI capabilities across different healthcare domains.</p>","PeriodicalId":43456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The use of ChatGPT and Google Gemini in responding to orthognathic surgery-related questions: A comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed A Abdel Aziz, Hams H Abdelrahman, Mohamed G Hassan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.09.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study employed a quantitative approach to compare the reliability of responses provided by ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Gemini in response to orthognathic surgery-related questions.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The authors adapted a set of 64 questions encompassing all of the domains and aspects related to orthognathic surgery. One author submitted the questions to ChatGPT3.5, ChatGPT4, and Google Gemini. The AI-generated responses from the three platforms were recorded and evaluated by 2 blinded and independent experts. The reliability of AI-generated responses was evaluated using a tool for accuracy of information and completeness. In addition, the provision of definitive answers to close-ended questions, references, graphical elements, and advice to schedule consultations with a specialist were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although ChatGPT-3.5 achieved the highest information reliability score, the 3 LLMs showed similar reliability scores in providing responses to orthognathic surgery-related inquiries. Moreover, Google Gemini significantly included physician recommendations and provided graphical elements. Both ChatGPT-3.5 and -4 lacked these features.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study shows that ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Gemini can provide reliable responses to inquires about orthognathic surgery. However, Google Gemini stood out by incorporating additional references and illustrations within its responses. These findings highlight the need for an additional evaluation of AI capabilities across different healthcare domains.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43456,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.09.004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.09.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究采用定量方法比较了 ChatGPT-3.5、ChatGPT-4 和 Google Gemini 在回答正颌外科手术相关问题时所提供回答的可靠性:作者们改编了一套 64 个问题,涵盖了与正颌外科手术相关的所有领域和方面。一位作者将这些问题提交给了 ChatGPT3.5、ChatGPT4 和 Google Gemini。这三个平台上由人工智能生成的回答由两名独立的盲人专家进行记录和评估。使用信息准确性和完整性工具对人工智能生成的回答的可靠性进行了评估。此外,还收集了对封闭式问题的明确回答、参考资料、图形元素以及与专家预约咨询的建议:结果:尽管 ChatGPT-3.5 获得了最高的信息可靠性得分,但 3 个 LLM 在回答正颌外科手术相关咨询时显示出了相似的可靠性得分。此外,Google Gemini 在很大程度上包含了医生建议并提供了图形元素。结论:本研究表明,ChatGPT-3.5、ChatGPT-4 和 Google Gemini 可以为有关正颌外科手术的咨询提供可靠的回复。不过,Google Gemini 通过在回复中加入更多参考资料和插图而脱颖而出。这些发现凸显了对不同医疗领域的人工智能能力进行额外评估的必要性。
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
The use of ChatGPT and Google Gemini in responding to orthognathic surgery-related questions: A comparative study.

Aim: This study employed a quantitative approach to compare the reliability of responses provided by ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Gemini in response to orthognathic surgery-related questions.

Material and methods: The authors adapted a set of 64 questions encompassing all of the domains and aspects related to orthognathic surgery. One author submitted the questions to ChatGPT3.5, ChatGPT4, and Google Gemini. The AI-generated responses from the three platforms were recorded and evaluated by 2 blinded and independent experts. The reliability of AI-generated responses was evaluated using a tool for accuracy of information and completeness. In addition, the provision of definitive answers to close-ended questions, references, graphical elements, and advice to schedule consultations with a specialist were collected.

Results: Although ChatGPT-3.5 achieved the highest information reliability score, the 3 LLMs showed similar reliability scores in providing responses to orthognathic surgery-related inquiries. Moreover, Google Gemini significantly included physician recommendations and provided graphical elements. Both ChatGPT-3.5 and -4 lacked these features.

Conclusion: This study shows that ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Gemini can provide reliable responses to inquires about orthognathic surgery. However, Google Gemini stood out by incorporating additional references and illustrations within its responses. These findings highlight the need for an additional evaluation of AI capabilities across different healthcare domains.

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
Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists
Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.80%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Microplastics and orthodontic aligners: The concerns arising from the modernization of practice through polymers and plastics. Assessment of coated orthodontic miniscrews with chlorhexidine hexametaphosphate antimicrobial nanoparticles: A randomized clinical trial. Protraction of a mandibular second molar into the adjacent atrophic first-molar extraction site with ridge-split technique through clear aligners: A case report. Automated dentition segmentation: 3D UNet-based approach with MIScnn framework. In vitro physical properties and clinical stability of reused orthodontic miniscrews: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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