Assessing ChatGPT’s Responses to Otolaryngology Patient Questions

Jonathan M. Carnino, William R. Pellegrini, Megan Willis, Michael B. Cohen, Marianella Paz-Lansberg, Elizabeth M. Davis, Gregory A. Grillone, Jessica R. Levi
{"title":"Assessing ChatGPT’s Responses to Otolaryngology Patient Questions","authors":"Jonathan M. Carnino, William R. Pellegrini, Megan Willis, Michael B. Cohen, Marianella Paz-Lansberg, Elizabeth M. Davis, Gregory A. Grillone, Jessica R. Levi","doi":"10.1177/00034894241249621","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective:This study aims to evaluate ChatGPT’s performance in addressing real-world otolaryngology patient questions, focusing on accuracy, comprehensiveness, and patient safety, to assess its suitability for integration into healthcare.Methods:A cross-sectional study was conducted using patient questions from the public online forum Reddit’s r/AskDocs, where medical advice is sought from healthcare professionals. Patient questions were input into ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), and responses were reviewed by 5 board-certified otolaryngologists. The evaluation criteria included difficulty, accuracy, comprehensiveness, and bedside manner/empathy. Statistical analysis explored the relationship between patient question characteristics and ChatGPT response scores. Potentially dangerous responses were also identified.Results:Patient questions averaged 224.93 words, while ChatGPT responses were longer at 414.93 words. The accuracy scores for ChatGPT responses were 3.76/5, comprehensiveness scores were 3.59/5, and bedside manner/empathy scores were 4.28/5. Longer patient questions did not correlate with higher response ratings. However, longer ChatGPT responses scored higher in bedside manner/empathy. Higher question difficulty correlated with lower comprehensiveness. Five responses were flagged as potentially dangerous.Conclusion:While ChatGPT exhibits promise in addressing otolaryngology patient questions, this study demonstrates its limitations, particularly in accuracy and comprehensiveness. The identification of potentially dangerous responses underscores the need for a cautious approach to AI in medical advice. Responsible integration of AI into healthcare necessitates thorough assessments of model performance and ethical considerations for patient safety.","PeriodicalId":8361,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00034894241249621","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective:This study aims to evaluate ChatGPT’s performance in addressing real-world otolaryngology patient questions, focusing on accuracy, comprehensiveness, and patient safety, to assess its suitability for integration into healthcare.Methods:A cross-sectional study was conducted using patient questions from the public online forum Reddit’s r/AskDocs, where medical advice is sought from healthcare professionals. Patient questions were input into ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), and responses were reviewed by 5 board-certified otolaryngologists. The evaluation criteria included difficulty, accuracy, comprehensiveness, and bedside manner/empathy. Statistical analysis explored the relationship between patient question characteristics and ChatGPT response scores. Potentially dangerous responses were also identified.Results:Patient questions averaged 224.93 words, while ChatGPT responses were longer at 414.93 words. The accuracy scores for ChatGPT responses were 3.76/5, comprehensiveness scores were 3.59/5, and bedside manner/empathy scores were 4.28/5. Longer patient questions did not correlate with higher response ratings. However, longer ChatGPT responses scored higher in bedside manner/empathy. Higher question difficulty correlated with lower comprehensiveness. Five responses were flagged as potentially dangerous.Conclusion:While ChatGPT exhibits promise in addressing otolaryngology patient questions, this study demonstrates its limitations, particularly in accuracy and comprehensiveness. The identification of potentially dangerous responses underscores the need for a cautious approach to AI in medical advice. Responsible integration of AI into healthcare necessitates thorough assessments of model performance and ethical considerations for patient safety.
评估 ChatGPT 对耳鼻喉科患者问题的回答
目的:本研究旨在评估 ChatGPT 在解决现实世界中耳鼻喉科患者问题时的表现,重点关注准确性、全面性和患者安全性,以评估其是否适合整合到医疗保健中。方法:我们使用来自 Reddit's r/AskDocs 公共在线论坛的患者问题进行了一项横断面研究,患者可在该论坛上向医疗保健专业人士寻求医疗建议。患者的问题被输入到 ChatGPT(GPT-3.5)中,并由 5 位经董事会认证的耳鼻喉科专家对回复进行审核。评估标准包括难度、准确性、全面性和床边态度/同情心。统计分析探讨了患者问题特征与 ChatGPT 回答得分之间的关系。结果:患者提问的平均字数为 224.93 个字,而 ChatGPT 回复的平均字数为 414.93 个字。ChatGPT 回复的准确性评分为 3.76/5,全面性评分为 3.59/5,床边态度/同情心评分为 4.28/5。较长的患者问题与较高的回复评分并不相关。然而,较长的 ChatGPT 回答在床边态度/同情心方面得分较高。问题难度越高,全面性越低。结论:虽然 ChatGPT 在解决耳鼻喉科患者的问题方面大有可为,但这项研究表明了它的局限性,尤其是在准确性和全面性方面。潜在危险回复的识别强调了在医疗咨询中采用人工智能的谨慎态度。要负责任地将人工智能融入医疗保健,就必须对模型的性能和患者安全的道德因素进行全面评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信