Application value of generative artificial intelligence in the field of stomatology.

Yuanlong Ye, Wei Zeng, Jinlong Chen, Lei Liu
{"title":"Application value of generative artificial intelligence in the field of stomatology.","authors":"Yuanlong Ye, Wei Zeng, Jinlong Chen, Lei Liu","doi":"10.7518/hxkq.2024.2024144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to compare and analyze three types of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) and explore their application value and existing problems in the field of stomatology in the Chinese context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 36 questions were designed, covering all the professional areas of stomatology. The questions encompassed various aspects including medical records, professional knowledge, and translation and editing. These questions were submitted to ChatGPT4-turbo, Gemini (2024.2) and ERNIE Bot 4.0. After obtaining the answers, a blinded evaluation was conducted by three experienced oral medicine physicians using a four-point Likert scale. The value of GAI in various application scenarios was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Gemini scored 45, ERNIE Bot scored 38, and ChatGPT scored 33 for clinical documentation and image production. For research assistance, Gemini achieved 45, ERNIE Bot had 39, and ChatGPT scored 35. Teaching assistance capabilities were rated at 54 for ERNIE Bot, 50 for Gemini, and 48 for ChatGPT. In patient consultation and guidance, Gemini scored 78, ERNIE Bot scored 59, and ChatGPT scored 48. Overall, the total scores were 218, 190, and 164 for Gemini, ERNIE Bot, and ChatGPT, respectively. Among GAI applications, the top scoring categories were article translation and polishing (26), patient-doctor communication documentation (23), and popular science content creation (23). The lowest scoring categories were literature search and reporting (13) and image generation (12).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the Chinese context, the application value of GAI is the highest for Gemini, followed by ERNIE Bot and ChatGPT. GAI shows significant value in translation, patient-doctor communication, and popular science writing. However, its value in literature search, reporting, and image generation remains limited.</p>","PeriodicalId":94028,"journal":{"name":"Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology","volume":"42 6","pages":"810-815"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7518/hxkq.2024.2024144","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

Objectives: This study aims to compare and analyze three types of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) and explore their application value and existing problems in the field of stomatology in the Chinese context.

Methods: A total of 36 questions were designed, covering all the professional areas of stomatology. The questions encompassed various aspects including medical records, professional knowledge, and translation and editing. These questions were submitted to ChatGPT4-turbo, Gemini (2024.2) and ERNIE Bot 4.0. After obtaining the answers, a blinded evaluation was conducted by three experienced oral medicine physicians using a four-point Likert scale. The value of GAI in various application scenarios was evaluated.

Results: Gemini scored 45, ERNIE Bot scored 38, and ChatGPT scored 33 for clinical documentation and image production. For research assistance, Gemini achieved 45, ERNIE Bot had 39, and ChatGPT scored 35. Teaching assistance capabilities were rated at 54 for ERNIE Bot, 50 for Gemini, and 48 for ChatGPT. In patient consultation and guidance, Gemini scored 78, ERNIE Bot scored 59, and ChatGPT scored 48. Overall, the total scores were 218, 190, and 164 for Gemini, ERNIE Bot, and ChatGPT, respectively. Among GAI applications, the top scoring categories were article translation and polishing (26), patient-doctor communication documentation (23), and popular science content creation (23). The lowest scoring categories were literature search and reporting (13) and image generation (12).

Conclusions: In the Chinese context, the application value of GAI is the highest for Gemini, followed by ERNIE Bot and ChatGPT. GAI shows significant value in translation, patient-doctor communication, and popular science writing. However, its value in literature search, reporting, and image generation remains limited.

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