ChatGPT作为内容生成工具在继续医学教育中的应用:痤疮作为测试主题。

IF 1.3 Q2 DERMATOLOGY Dermatology Reports Pub Date : 2025-05-23 Epub Date: 2024-11-28 DOI:10.4081/dr.2024.10138
Luigi Naldi, Vincenzo Bettoli, Eugenio Santoro, Maria Rosa Valetto, Anna Bolzon, Fortunato Cassalia, Simone Cazzaniga, Sergio Cima, Andrea Danese, Silvia Emendi, Monica Ponzano, Nicoletta Scarpa, Pietro Dri
{"title":"ChatGPT作为内容生成工具在继续医学教育中的应用:痤疮作为测试主题。","authors":"Luigi Naldi, Vincenzo Bettoli, Eugenio Santoro, Maria Rosa Valetto, Anna Bolzon, Fortunato Cassalia, Simone Cazzaniga, Sergio Cima, Andrea Danese, Silvia Emendi, Monica Ponzano, Nicoletta Scarpa, Pietro Dri","doi":"10.4081/dr.2024.10138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The large language model (LLM) ChatGPT can answer open-ended and complex questions, but its accuracy in providing reliable medical information requires a careful assessment. As part of the AI-CHECK (Artificial Intelligence for CME Health E-learning Contents and Knowledge) study, aimed at evaluating the potential of ChatGPT in continuous medical education (CME), we compared ChatGPT-generated educational content to the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on acne vulgaris. ChatGPT version 4 was exposed to a 23-item questionnaire developed by an experienced dermatologist. A panel of five dermatologists rated the answers positively in terms of \"quality\" (87.8%), \"readability\" (94.8%), \"accuracy\" (75.7%), \"thoroughness\" (85.2%), and \"consistency\" with guidelines (76.8%). The references provided by ChatGPT obtained positive ratings for \"pertinence\" (94.6%), \"relevance\" (91.2%), and \"update\" (62.3%). The internal reproducibility was adequate both for answers (93.5%) and references (67.4%). Answers related to issues of uncertainty and/or controversy in the scientific community scored the lowest. This study underscores the need to develop rigorous evaluation criteria for AI-generated medical content and for expert oversight to ensure accuracy and guideline adherence.</p>","PeriodicalId":11049,"journal":{"name":"Dermatology Reports","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12210357/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Application of ChatGPT as a content generation tool in continuing medical education: acne as a test topic.\",\"authors\":\"Luigi Naldi, Vincenzo Bettoli, Eugenio Santoro, Maria Rosa Valetto, Anna Bolzon, Fortunato Cassalia, Simone Cazzaniga, Sergio Cima, Andrea Danese, Silvia Emendi, Monica Ponzano, Nicoletta Scarpa, Pietro Dri\",\"doi\":\"10.4081/dr.2024.10138\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The large language model (LLM) ChatGPT can answer open-ended and complex questions, but its accuracy in providing reliable medical information requires a careful assessment. As part of the AI-CHECK (Artificial Intelligence for CME Health E-learning Contents and Knowledge) study, aimed at evaluating the potential of ChatGPT in continuous medical education (CME), we compared ChatGPT-generated educational content to the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on acne vulgaris. ChatGPT version 4 was exposed to a 23-item questionnaire developed by an experienced dermatologist. A panel of five dermatologists rated the answers positively in terms of \\\"quality\\\" (87.8%), \\\"readability\\\" (94.8%), \\\"accuracy\\\" (75.7%), \\\"thoroughness\\\" (85.2%), and \\\"consistency\\\" with guidelines (76.8%). The references provided by ChatGPT obtained positive ratings for \\\"pertinence\\\" (94.6%), \\\"relevance\\\" (91.2%), and \\\"update\\\" (62.3%). The internal reproducibility was adequate both for answers (93.5%) and references (67.4%). Answers related to issues of uncertainty and/or controversy in the scientific community scored the lowest. This study underscores the need to develop rigorous evaluation criteria for AI-generated medical content and for expert oversight to ensure accuracy and guideline adherence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11049,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dermatology Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12210357/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dermatology Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4081/dr.2024.10138\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dermatology Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/dr.2024.10138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大型语言模型(LLM) ChatGPT可以回答开放式和复杂的问题,但其提供可靠医疗信息的准确性需要仔细评估。作为AICHECK(人工智能用于继续医学教育健康电子学习内容和知识)研究的一部分,旨在评估ChatGPT在继续医学教育(CME)中的潜力,我们将ChatGPT生成的教育内容与美国国家健康与护理卓越研究所(NICE)关于寻常痤疮指南的建议进行了比较。ChatGPT版本4暴露于由经验丰富的皮肤科医生开发的23项问卷。一个由五位皮肤科医生组成的小组在“质量”(87.8%)、“可读性”(94.8%)、“准确性”(75.7%)、“彻彻性”(85.2%)和“与指南的一致性”(76.8%)方面对答案给出了积极的评价。ChatGPT提供的参考文献在“针对性”(94.6%)、“相关性”(91.2%)和“更新”(62.3%)方面获得了积极的评价。内部重现性对答案(93.5%)和参考文献(67.4%)都是足够的。与科学界的不确定性和/或争议问题相关的答案得分最低。这项研究强调有必要为人工智能生成的医疗内容和专家监督制定严格的评估标准,以确保准确性和指南的遵守。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Application of ChatGPT as a content generation tool in continuing medical education: acne as a test topic.

The large language model (LLM) ChatGPT can answer open-ended and complex questions, but its accuracy in providing reliable medical information requires a careful assessment. As part of the AI-CHECK (Artificial Intelligence for CME Health E-learning Contents and Knowledge) study, aimed at evaluating the potential of ChatGPT in continuous medical education (CME), we compared ChatGPT-generated educational content to the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on acne vulgaris. ChatGPT version 4 was exposed to a 23-item questionnaire developed by an experienced dermatologist. A panel of five dermatologists rated the answers positively in terms of "quality" (87.8%), "readability" (94.8%), "accuracy" (75.7%), "thoroughness" (85.2%), and "consistency" with guidelines (76.8%). The references provided by ChatGPT obtained positive ratings for "pertinence" (94.6%), "relevance" (91.2%), and "update" (62.3%). The internal reproducibility was adequate both for answers (93.5%) and references (67.4%). Answers related to issues of uncertainty and/or controversy in the scientific community scored the lowest. This study underscores the need to develop rigorous evaluation criteria for AI-generated medical content and for expert oversight to ensure accuracy and guideline adherence.

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
Dermatology Reports
Dermatology Reports DERMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
74
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comparative analysis of Curcuma longa (curcumin) and fusidic acid on the antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes in impetigo. Omalizumab for treatment of refractory urticaria in a patient with metastatic uveal melanoma receiving tebentafusp. Publication trends in vitiligo research from 1991 to 2024: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. Morbihan disease in an Asian patient: diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Treatment of scleromyxedema Arndt-Gottron with a novel intravenous immunoglobulin preparation.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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