Can people with epilepsy trust AI chatbots for information on physical exercise?

IF 2.3 3区医学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Epilepsy & Behavior Pub Date : 2024-12-04 DOI:10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.110193

Rizia Rocha-Silva, Bráulio Evangelista de Lima, Thalles Guilarducci Costa, Naiane Silva Morais, Geovana José, Douglas Farias Cordeiro, Alexandre Aparecido de Almeida, Glauber Menezes Lopim, Ricardo Borges Viana, Bolivar Saldanha Sousa, Diego Basile Colugnati, Rodrigo Luiz Vancini, Marília Santos Andrade, Katja Weiss, Beat Knechtle, Ricardo Mario Arida, Claudio Andre Barbosa de Lira

{"title":"Can people with epilepsy trust AI chatbots for information on physical exercise?","authors":"Rizia Rocha-Silva, Bráulio Evangelista de Lima, Thalles Guilarducci Costa, Naiane Silva Morais, Geovana José, Douglas Farias Cordeiro, Alexandre Aparecido de Almeida, Glauber Menezes Lopim, Ricardo Borges Viana, Bolivar Saldanha Sousa, Diego Basile Colugnati, Rodrigo Luiz Vancini, Marília Santos Andrade, Katja Weiss, Beat Knechtle, Ricardo Mario Arida, Claudio Andre Barbosa de Lira","doi":"10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.110193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the similarity, readability, and alignment with current scientific knowledge of responses from AI-based chatbots to common questions about epilepsy and physical exercise.Methods: Four AI chatbots (ChatGPT-3.5,ChatGPT 4, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot) were evaluated. Fourteen questions on epilepsy and physical exercise were designed to compare the platforms. Lexical similarity, response patterns, and thematic content were analyzed. Readability was measured using the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores. Seven experts rated the quality of responses on a Likert scale from \"very poor\" to \"very good.\"Results: The responses showed lexical similarity, with approaches to physical exercise ranging from conservative to holistic. Microsoft Copilot scored the highest on the Flesch Reading Ease scale (48.42 ± 13.71), while ChatGPT-3.5 scored the lowest (23.84 ± 8.19). All responses were generally rated as difficult to read. Quality ratings ranged from \"Good\" to \"Acceptable,\" with ChatGPT 4 being the preferred platform, chosen by 48.98 % of reviewers.Conclusion: The findings highlight the potential of AI chatbots as useful sources of information on epilepsy and physical exercise. However, simplifying language and tailoring content to user's needs is essential to enhance their effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":11847,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsy & Behavior","volume":"163 ","pages":"110193"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsy & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.110193","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the similarity, readability, and alignment with current scientific knowledge of responses from AI-based chatbots to common questions about epilepsy and physical exercise.

Methods: Four AI chatbots (ChatGPT-3.5,ChatGPT 4, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot) were evaluated. Fourteen questions on epilepsy and physical exercise were designed to compare the platforms. Lexical similarity, response patterns, and thematic content were analyzed. Readability was measured using the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores. Seven experts rated the quality of responses on a Likert scale from "very poor" to "very good."

Results: The responses showed lexical similarity, with approaches to physical exercise ranging from conservative to holistic. Microsoft Copilot scored the highest on the Flesch Reading Ease scale (48.42 ± 13.71), while ChatGPT-3.5 scored the lowest (23.84 ± 8.19). All responses were generally rated as difficult to read. Quality ratings ranged from "Good" to "Acceptable," with ChatGPT 4 being the preferred platform, chosen by 48.98 % of reviewers.

Conclusion: The findings highlight the potential of AI chatbots as useful sources of information on epilepsy and physical exercise. However, simplifying language and tailoring content to user's needs is essential to enhance their effectiveness.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Epilepsy & Behavior 医学-行为科学

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

15.40%

发文量

385

审稿时长

43 days

期刊介绍： Epilepsy & Behavior is the fastest-growing international journal uniquely devoted to the rapid dissemination of the most current information available on the behavioral aspects of seizures and epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior presents original peer-reviewed articles based on laboratory and clinical research. Topics are drawn from a variety of fields, including clinical neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, neurophysiology, neuropharmacology, and neuroimaging. From September 2012 Epilepsy & Behavior stopped accepting Case Reports for publication in the journal. From this date authors who submit to Epilepsy & Behavior will be offered a transfer or asked to resubmit their Case Reports to its new sister journal, Epilepsy & Behavior Case Reports.