大语言模型生成的近视教育材料中人口统计学修饰符对可读性的影响。

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) Pub Date : 2024-12-04 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OPTH.S483024
Gabriela G Lee, Deniz Goodman, Ta Chen Peter Chang
{"title":"大语言模型生成的近视教育材料中人口统计学修饰符对可读性的影响。","authors":"Gabriela G Lee, Deniz Goodman, Ta Chen Peter Chang","doi":"10.2147/OPTH.S483024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rise of large language models (LLM) promises to widely impact healthcare providers and patients alike. As these tools reflect the biases of currently available data on the internet, there is a risk that increasing LLM use will proliferate these biases and affect information quality. This study aims to characterize the effects of different race, ethnicity, and gender modifiers in question prompts presented to three large language models (LLM) on the length and readability of patient education materials about myopia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot were provided a standardized prompt incorporating demographic modifiers to inquire about myopia. The races and ethnicities evaluated were Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and White. Gender was limited to male or female. The prompt was inserted five times into new chat windows. Responses were analyzed for readability by word count, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Flesch Reading Ease score. Significant differences were analyzed using two-way ANOVA on SPSS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 150 responses were analyzed. There were no differences in SMOG index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, or Flesch Reading Ease scores between responses generated with prompts containing different gender, race, or ethnicity modifiers using ChatGPT or Copilot. Gemini-generated responses differed significantly in their SMOG Index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Flesch Reading Ease based on the race mentioned in the prompt (p<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patient demographic information impacts the reading level of educational material generated by Gemini but not by ChatGPT or Copilot. As patients use LLMs to understand ophthalmologic diagnoses like myopia, clinicians and users should be aware of demographic influences on readability. Patient gender, race, and ethnicity may be overlooked variables affecting the readability of LLM-generated education materials, which can impact patient care. Future research could focus on the accuracy of generated information to identify potential risks of misinformation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93945,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","volume":"18 ","pages":"3591-3604"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11625417/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Demographic Modifiers on Readability of Myopia Education Materials Generated by Large Language Models.\",\"authors\":\"Gabriela G Lee, Deniz Goodman, Ta Chen Peter Chang\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/OPTH.S483024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rise of large language models (LLM) promises to widely impact healthcare providers and patients alike. As these tools reflect the biases of currently available data on the internet, there is a risk that increasing LLM use will proliferate these biases and affect information quality. This study aims to characterize the effects of different race, ethnicity, and gender modifiers in question prompts presented to three large language models (LLM) on the length and readability of patient education materials about myopia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot were provided a standardized prompt incorporating demographic modifiers to inquire about myopia. The races and ethnicities evaluated were Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and White. Gender was limited to male or female. The prompt was inserted five times into new chat windows. Responses were analyzed for readability by word count, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Flesch Reading Ease score. Significant differences were analyzed using two-way ANOVA on SPSS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 150 responses were analyzed. There were no differences in SMOG index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, or Flesch Reading Ease scores between responses generated with prompts containing different gender, race, or ethnicity modifiers using ChatGPT or Copilot. Gemini-generated responses differed significantly in their SMOG Index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Flesch Reading Ease based on the race mentioned in the prompt (p<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patient demographic information impacts the reading level of educational material generated by Gemini but not by ChatGPT or Copilot. As patients use LLMs to understand ophthalmologic diagnoses like myopia, clinicians and users should be aware of demographic influences on readability. Patient gender, race, and ethnicity may be overlooked variables affecting the readability of LLM-generated education materials, which can impact patient care. Future research could focus on the accuracy of generated information to identify potential risks of misinformation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"3591-3604\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11625417/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S483024\",\"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":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S483024","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

背景:大型语言模型(LLM)的兴起有望广泛影响医疗保健提供者和患者。由于这些工具反映了互联网上当前可用数据的偏差,因此法学硕士使用的增加可能会增加这些偏差并影响信息质量。本研究旨在探讨不同种族、民族和性别修饰语对三种大型语言模型(LLM)患者近视教育材料长度和可读性的影响。方法:对ChatGPT、Gemini和Copilot进行纳入人口统计学修饰词的标准化提示询问近视情况。被评估的种族和民族包括亚洲人、黑人、西班牙人、美洲原住民和白人。性别仅限于男性或女性。在新的聊天窗口中插入了五次提示符。通过字数统计、简单测量的Gobbledygook (SMOG)指数、Flesch- kincaid等级水平和Flesch阅读易用性评分来分析回复的可读性。采用SPSS的双向方差分析分析显著差异。结果:共分析了150份问卷。在使用ChatGPT或Copilot使用包含不同性别、种族或民族修饰符的提示生成的回答之间,烟雾指数、Flesch- kinaid Grade Level或Flesch Reading Ease得分没有差异。根据提示中提到的种族,双子座生成的回答在SMOG指数、Flesch- kincaid Grade Level和Flesch Reading Ease方面存在显著差异(pConclusion:患者人口统计信息影响双子座生成的教育材料的阅读水平,而ChatGPT或Copilot生成的教育材料没有影响。)当患者使用llm来理解近视等眼科诊断时,临床医生和用户应该意识到人口统计学对可读性的影响。患者的性别、种族和民族可能被忽视的变量影响法学硕士生成的教育材料的可读性,这可能会影响患者的护理。未来的研究可以关注生成信息的准确性,以识别错误信息的潜在风险。
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
Impact of Demographic Modifiers on Readability of Myopia Education Materials Generated by Large Language Models.

Background: The rise of large language models (LLM) promises to widely impact healthcare providers and patients alike. As these tools reflect the biases of currently available data on the internet, there is a risk that increasing LLM use will proliferate these biases and affect information quality. This study aims to characterize the effects of different race, ethnicity, and gender modifiers in question prompts presented to three large language models (LLM) on the length and readability of patient education materials about myopia.

Methods: ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot were provided a standardized prompt incorporating demographic modifiers to inquire about myopia. The races and ethnicities evaluated were Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and White. Gender was limited to male or female. The prompt was inserted five times into new chat windows. Responses were analyzed for readability by word count, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Flesch Reading Ease score. Significant differences were analyzed using two-way ANOVA on SPSS.

Results: A total of 150 responses were analyzed. There were no differences in SMOG index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, or Flesch Reading Ease scores between responses generated with prompts containing different gender, race, or ethnicity modifiers using ChatGPT or Copilot. Gemini-generated responses differed significantly in their SMOG Index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Flesch Reading Ease based on the race mentioned in the prompt (p<0.05).

Conclusion: Patient demographic information impacts the reading level of educational material generated by Gemini but not by ChatGPT or Copilot. As patients use LLMs to understand ophthalmologic diagnoses like myopia, clinicians and users should be aware of demographic influences on readability. Patient gender, race, and ethnicity may be overlooked variables affecting the readability of LLM-generated education materials, which can impact patient care. Future research could focus on the accuracy of generated information to identify potential risks of misinformation.

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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2. Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction of Two Continuous Range of Vision Intraocular Lenses. Application of the 2021 AAPOS Guidelines in Clinics with Revision and Validation of SPOT Referral Criteria. Clinical Evaluation of Faricimab in Real-World Diabetic Macular Edema in India- A Multicenter Observational Study. Propensity Score to Compare Pars Plana Vitrectomy and Scleral Buckling in Retrospective Studies [Letter].
×
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