比较 ChatGPT 与外科医生生成的整形手术知情同意书。

Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum Pub Date : 2024-10-22 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/asjof/ojae092
Ishan Patel, Anjali Om, Daniel Cuzzone, Gabriela Garcia Nores
{"title":"比较 ChatGPT 与外科医生生成的整形手术知情同意书。","authors":"Ishan Patel, Anjali Om, Daniel Cuzzone, Gabriela Garcia Nores","doi":"10.1093/asjof/ojae092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Informed consent is a crucial requirement of a patient's surgical care but can be a burdensome task. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning language models may provide an alternative approach to writing detailed, readable consent forms in an efficient manner. No studies have assessed the accuracy and completeness of AI-generated consents for aesthetic plastic surgeries. This study aims to compare the length, reading level, accuracy, and completeness of informed consent forms that are AI chatbot (ChatGPT-4; OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) generated vs plastic surgeon generated for the most commonly performed aesthetic plastic surgeries. This study is a cross-sectional design comparing informed consent forms created by the American Association of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) with informed consent forms generated by ChatGPT-4 for the 5 most commonly performed plastic surgery procedures: liposuction, breast augmentation, abdominoplasty, breast lift, and blepharoplasty. The average word count of ChatGPT forms was lower than the ASPS-generated forms (1023 vs 2901, <i>P</i> = .01). Average reading level for ChatGPT forms was also lower than the ASPS forms (11.2 vs 12.5, <i>P</i> = .02). There was no difference between accuracy and completeness scores for general descriptions of the surgery, risks, benefits, or alternatives. The mean overall impression score for ChatGPT consents was 2.33, whereas it was 2.23 for ASPS consent forms (<i>P</i> = .18). In this study, the authors demonstrate that informed consent forms generated by ChatGPT were significantly shorter and more readable than ASPS forms with no significant difference in completeness and accuracy.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence 5 risk: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":72118,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","volume":"6 ","pages":"ojae092"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11561908/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing ChatGPT vs Surgeon-Generated Informed Consent Documentation for Plastic Surgery Procedures.\",\"authors\":\"Ishan Patel, Anjali Om, Daniel Cuzzone, Gabriela Garcia Nores\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/asjof/ojae092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Informed consent is a crucial requirement of a patient's surgical care but can be a burdensome task. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning language models may provide an alternative approach to writing detailed, readable consent forms in an efficient manner. No studies have assessed the accuracy and completeness of AI-generated consents for aesthetic plastic surgeries. This study aims to compare the length, reading level, accuracy, and completeness of informed consent forms that are AI chatbot (ChatGPT-4; OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) generated vs plastic surgeon generated for the most commonly performed aesthetic plastic surgeries. This study is a cross-sectional design comparing informed consent forms created by the American Association of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) with informed consent forms generated by ChatGPT-4 for the 5 most commonly performed plastic surgery procedures: liposuction, breast augmentation, abdominoplasty, breast lift, and blepharoplasty. The average word count of ChatGPT forms was lower than the ASPS-generated forms (1023 vs 2901, <i>P</i> = .01). Average reading level for ChatGPT forms was also lower than the ASPS forms (11.2 vs 12.5, <i>P</i> = .02). There was no difference between accuracy and completeness scores for general descriptions of the surgery, risks, benefits, or alternatives. The mean overall impression score for ChatGPT consents was 2.33, whereas it was 2.23 for ASPS consent forms (<i>P</i> = .18). In this study, the authors demonstrate that informed consent forms generated by ChatGPT were significantly shorter and more readable than ASPS forms with no significant difference in completeness and accuracy.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence 5 risk: </strong></p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"ojae092\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11561908/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojae092\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojae092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

知情同意是患者手术护理的一项重要要求,但可能是一项繁重的任务。人工智能(AI)和机器学习语言模型可为高效书写详细、可读性强的同意书提供另一种方法。目前还没有研究对人工智能生成的美容整形手术同意书的准确性和完整性进行评估。本研究旨在比较人工智能聊天机器人(ChatGPT-4;OpenAI,加利福尼亚州旧金山)生成的知情同意书与整形外科医生生成的知情同意书在最常进行的美容整形手术中的长度、阅读水平、准确性和完整性。本研究采用横断面设计,比较了由美国整形外科医师协会(ASPS)创建的知情同意书和由 ChatGPT-4 生成的知情同意书,后者适用于最常实施的 5 种整形手术:吸脂、隆胸、腹部整形、乳房提升和眼睑整形。ChatGPT 表格的平均字数低于 ASPS 生成的表格(1023 对 2901,P = .01)。ChatGPT 表格的平均阅读水平也低于 ASPS 表格(11.2 vs 12.5,P = .02)。对于手术的一般描述、风险、益处或替代方案,准确性和完整性得分之间没有差异。ChatGPT 同意书的平均总体印象分数为 2.33,而 ASPS 同意书的平均总体印象分数为 2.23(P = .18)。在这项研究中,作者证明了由 ChatGPT 生成的知情同意书明显比 ASPS 表格更简短、更易读,但在完整性和准确性方面没有显著差异:
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
Comparing ChatGPT vs Surgeon-Generated Informed Consent Documentation for Plastic Surgery Procedures.

Informed consent is a crucial requirement of a patient's surgical care but can be a burdensome task. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning language models may provide an alternative approach to writing detailed, readable consent forms in an efficient manner. No studies have assessed the accuracy and completeness of AI-generated consents for aesthetic plastic surgeries. This study aims to compare the length, reading level, accuracy, and completeness of informed consent forms that are AI chatbot (ChatGPT-4; OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) generated vs plastic surgeon generated for the most commonly performed aesthetic plastic surgeries. This study is a cross-sectional design comparing informed consent forms created by the American Association of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) with informed consent forms generated by ChatGPT-4 for the 5 most commonly performed plastic surgery procedures: liposuction, breast augmentation, abdominoplasty, breast lift, and blepharoplasty. The average word count of ChatGPT forms was lower than the ASPS-generated forms (1023 vs 2901, P = .01). Average reading level for ChatGPT forms was also lower than the ASPS forms (11.2 vs 12.5, P = .02). There was no difference between accuracy and completeness scores for general descriptions of the surgery, risks, benefits, or alternatives. The mean overall impression score for ChatGPT consents was 2.33, whereas it was 2.23 for ASPS consent forms (P = .18). In this study, the authors demonstrate that informed consent forms generated by ChatGPT were significantly shorter and more readable than ASPS forms with no significant difference in completeness and accuracy.

Level of evidence 5 risk:

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
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Commentary on: The Role of Nasal Fat Preservation in Upper Lid Surgery and Assessment With the FACE-Q Questionnaire: Innovations in Upper Blepharoplasty. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Autologous vs Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage Grafts for Dorsal Augmentation Rhinoplasty. Commentary on: The Gargano Yin Yang Breast Reduction Technique: How to Obtain Better Breast Shape, Volume Distribution, and Size With Long-Lasting Results. Bibliometric Analysis of the Highest Cited Cosmetic Upper Facial Plastic Surgery Articles Over 50 Years. Might Topical Heparin Help With Occlusion Emergencies After Accidental Intra-Arterial Hyaluronic Acid Injections?
×
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