Comparative Evaluation of Chatbot Responses on Coronary Artery Disease.

Levent Pay, Ahmet Çağdaş Yumurtaş, Tuğba Çetin, Tufan Çınar, Mert İlker Hayıroğlu
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of Chatbot Responses on Coronary Artery Disease.","authors":"Levent Pay, Ahmet Çağdaş Yumurtaş, Tuğba Çetin, Tufan Çınar, Mert İlker Hayıroğlu","doi":"10.5543/tkda.2024.78131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The growing interest in natural language processing chatbots (NLPCs) has driven their inevitable widespread adoption in healthcare. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of responses provided by NLPCs, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Bing, to frequently asked questions about CAD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty frequently asked questions about CAD were asked twice, with a one-week interval, on ChatGPT, Gemini, and Bing. Two cardiologists independently scored the answers into four categories: comprehensive/correct (1), incomplete/partially correct (2), a mix of accurate and inaccurate/misleading (3), and completely inaccurate/irrelevant (4). The accuracy and reproducibility of each NLPC's responses were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT's responses were scored as 14% incomplete/partially correct and 86% comprehensive/correct. In contrast, Gemini provided 68% comprehensive/correct responses, 30% incomplete/partially correct responses, and 2% a mix of accurate and inaccurate/misleading information. Bing delivered 60% comprehensive/correct responses, 26% incomplete/partially correct responses, and 8% a mix of accurate and inaccurate/misleading information. Reproducibility scores were 88% for ChatGPT, 84% for Gemini, and 70% for Bing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ChatGPT demonstrates significant potential to improve patient education about coronary artery disease by providing more sensitive and accurate answers compared to Bing and Gemini.</p>","PeriodicalId":94261,"journal":{"name":"Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi arsivi : Turk Kardiyoloji Derneginin yayin organidir","volume":"53 1","pages":"35-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi arsivi : Turk Kardiyoloji Derneginin yayin organidir","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5543/tkda.2024.78131","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: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The growing interest in natural language processing chatbots (NLPCs) has driven their inevitable widespread adoption in healthcare. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of responses provided by NLPCs, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Bing, to frequently asked questions about CAD.

Methods: Fifty frequently asked questions about CAD were asked twice, with a one-week interval, on ChatGPT, Gemini, and Bing. Two cardiologists independently scored the answers into four categories: comprehensive/correct (1), incomplete/partially correct (2), a mix of accurate and inaccurate/misleading (3), and completely inaccurate/irrelevant (4). The accuracy and reproducibility of each NLPC's responses were assessed.

Results: ChatGPT's responses were scored as 14% incomplete/partially correct and 86% comprehensive/correct. In contrast, Gemini provided 68% comprehensive/correct responses, 30% incomplete/partially correct responses, and 2% a mix of accurate and inaccurate/misleading information. Bing delivered 60% comprehensive/correct responses, 26% incomplete/partially correct responses, and 8% a mix of accurate and inaccurate/misleading information. Reproducibility scores were 88% for ChatGPT, 84% for Gemini, and 70% for Bing.

Conclusion: ChatGPT demonstrates significant potential to improve patient education about coronary artery disease by providing more sensitive and accurate answers compared to Bing and Gemini.

聊天机器人对冠心病反应的比较评价。
目的:冠状动脉疾病(CAD)是全球发病率和死亡率的主要原因。人们对自然语言处理聊天机器人(NLPCs)的兴趣日益浓厚,这使得它们不可避免地在医疗保健领域得到广泛采用。本研究的目的是评估NLPCs(如ChatGPT、Gemini和Bing)对CAD常见问题的回答的准确性和可重复性。方法:对50个CAD常见问题进行两次问卷调查,间隔一周,分别在ChatGPT、Gemini和Bing上进行。两位心脏病专家独立地将答案分为四类:全面/正确(1),不完整/部分正确(2),准确和不准确/误导(3)的混合,以及完全不准确/不相关(4)。评估每个NLPC回答的准确性和可重复性。结果:ChatGPT的回答得分为14%不完整/部分正确,86%全面/正确。相比之下,双子座提供了68%的全面/正确的回答,30%的不完整/部分正确的回答,2%的混合准确和不准确/误导性的信息。必应提供了60%的全面/正确的回答,26%的不完整/部分正确的回答,8%的准确和不准确/误导性信息混合。ChatGPT的再现性评分为88%,Gemini为84%,Bing为70%。结论:与Bing和Gemini相比,ChatGPT提供了更敏感和准确的答案,在提高患者对冠状动脉疾病的教育方面具有重要的潜力。
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