Appropriateness and readability of Google Bard and ChatGPT-3.5 generated responses for surgical treatment of glaucoma.

Parul Ichhpujani, Uday Pratap Singh Parmar, Suresh Kumar
{"title":"Appropriateness and readability of Google Bard and ChatGPT-3.5 generated responses for surgical treatment of glaucoma.","authors":"Parul Ichhpujani, Uday Pratap Singh Parmar, Suresh Kumar","doi":"10.22336/rjo.2024.45","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the appropriateness and readability of the medical knowledge provided by ChatGPT-3.5 and Google Bard, artificial-intelligence-powered conversational search engines, regarding surgical treatment for glaucoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, 25 common questions related to the surgical management of glaucoma were asked on ChatGPT-3.5 and Google Bard. Glaucoma specialists graded the responses' appropriateness, and different scores assessed readability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Appropriate answers to the posed questions were obtained in 68% of the responses with Google Bard and 96% with ChatGPT-3.5. On average, the responses generated by Google Bard had a significantly lower proportion of sentences, having more than 30 and 20 syllables (23% and 52% respectively) compared to ChatGPT-3.5 (66% and 82% respectively), as noted by readability. Google Bard had significantly (p<0.0001) lower readability grade scores and significantly higher \"Flesch Reading ease score\", implying greater ease of readability amongst the answers generated by Google Bard.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Many patients and their families turn to LLM chatbots for information, necessitating clear and accurate content. Assessments of online glaucoma information have shown variability in quality and readability, with institutional websites generally performing better than private ones. We found that ChatGPT-3.5, while precise, has lower readability than Google Bard, which is more accessible but less precise. For example, the Flesch Reading Ease Score was 57.6 for Google Bard and 22.6 for ChatGPT, indicating Google Bard's content is easier to read. Moreover, the Gunning Fog Index scores suggested that Google Bard's text is more suitable for a broader audience. ChatGPT's knowledge is limited to data up to 2021, whereas Google Bard, trained with real-time data, offers more current information. Further research is needed to evaluate these tools across various medical topics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The answers generated by ChatGPT-3.5™ AI are more accurate than the ones given by Google Bard. However, comprehension of ChatGPT-3.5™ answers may be difficult for the public with glaucoma. This study emphasized the importance of verifying the accuracy and clarity of online information that glaucoma patients rely on to make informed decisions about their ocular health. This is an exciting new area for patient education and health literacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":94355,"journal":{"name":"Romanian journal of ophthalmology","volume":"68 3","pages":"243-248"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503238/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Romanian journal of ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22336/rjo.2024.45","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

Aim: To evaluate the appropriateness and readability of the medical knowledge provided by ChatGPT-3.5 and Google Bard, artificial-intelligence-powered conversational search engines, regarding surgical treatment for glaucoma.

Methods: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, 25 common questions related to the surgical management of glaucoma were asked on ChatGPT-3.5 and Google Bard. Glaucoma specialists graded the responses' appropriateness, and different scores assessed readability.

Results: Appropriate answers to the posed questions were obtained in 68% of the responses with Google Bard and 96% with ChatGPT-3.5. On average, the responses generated by Google Bard had a significantly lower proportion of sentences, having more than 30 and 20 syllables (23% and 52% respectively) compared to ChatGPT-3.5 (66% and 82% respectively), as noted by readability. Google Bard had significantly (p<0.0001) lower readability grade scores and significantly higher "Flesch Reading ease score", implying greater ease of readability amongst the answers generated by Google Bard.

Discussion: Many patients and their families turn to LLM chatbots for information, necessitating clear and accurate content. Assessments of online glaucoma information have shown variability in quality and readability, with institutional websites generally performing better than private ones. We found that ChatGPT-3.5, while precise, has lower readability than Google Bard, which is more accessible but less precise. For example, the Flesch Reading Ease Score was 57.6 for Google Bard and 22.6 for ChatGPT, indicating Google Bard's content is easier to read. Moreover, the Gunning Fog Index scores suggested that Google Bard's text is more suitable for a broader audience. ChatGPT's knowledge is limited to data up to 2021, whereas Google Bard, trained with real-time data, offers more current information. Further research is needed to evaluate these tools across various medical topics.

Conclusion: The answers generated by ChatGPT-3.5™ AI are more accurate than the ones given by Google Bard. However, comprehension of ChatGPT-3.5™ answers may be difficult for the public with glaucoma. This study emphasized the importance of verifying the accuracy and clarity of online information that glaucoma patients rely on to make informed decisions about their ocular health. This is an exciting new area for patient education and health literacy.

Google Bard 和 ChatGPT-3.5 生成的青光眼手术治疗回复的适当性和可读性。
目的:评估人工智能对话式搜索引擎 ChatGPT-3.5 和 Google Bard 所提供的有关青光眼手术治疗的医学知识的适当性和可读性:在这项回顾性横断面研究中,通过 ChatGPT-3.5 和 Google Bard 提出了 25 个与青光眼手术治疗相关的常见问题。青光眼专家对回答的适当性进行了评分,不同的分数评估了可读性:结果:使用 Google Bard 和 ChatGPT-3.5 的回答中,分别有 68% 和 96% 的人获得了所提问题的恰当答案。平均而言,与 ChatGPT-3.5 相比(分别为 66% 和 82%),Google Bard 生成的回复中,音节超过 30 个和 20 个的句子比例明显较低(分别为 23% 和 52%),可读性可见一斑。Google Bard 的可读性明显高于 ChatGPT-3.5(分别为 66% 和 82%):许多患者及其家属向 LLM 聊天机器人寻求信息,这就要求聊天机器人提供清晰准确的内容。对在线青光眼信息的评估显示,其质量和可读性存在差异,机构网站的表现通常优于私人网站。我们发现,ChatGPT-3.5 虽然准确,但可读性却低于谷歌巴德,后者更容易访问,但准确性较低。例如,Google Bard 的弗莱什阅读容易度得分为 57.6,而 ChatGPT 为 22.6,这表明 Google Bard 的内容更容易阅读。此外,Gunning Fog Index 分数表明,Google Bard 的文本更适合更广泛的受众。ChatGPT 的知识仅限于 2021 年之前的数据,而 Google Bard 是通过实时数据训练的,能提供更多最新信息。还需要进一步研究,以评估这些工具在不同医学主题中的应用:结论:ChatGPT-3.5™ 人工智能生成的答案比 Google Bard 提供的答案更准确。然而,患有青光眼的公众可能很难理解 ChatGPT-3.5™ 的答案。这项研究强调了验证在线信息准确性和清晰度的重要性,而青光眼患者正是依靠这些信息对其眼部健康做出明智的决定。这是患者教育和健康知识普及的一个令人兴奋的新领域。
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