ChatGPT, Google, or PINK? Who Provides the Most Reliable Information on Side Effects of Systemic Therapy for Early Breast Cancer?

IF 1.7 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Stefan Lukac, Sebastian Griewing, Elena Leinert, Davut Dayan, Benedikt Heitmeir, Markus Wallwiener, Wolfgang Janni, Visnja Fink, Florian Ebner
{"title":"ChatGPT, Google, or PINK? Who Provides the Most Reliable Information on Side Effects of Systemic Therapy for Early Breast Cancer?","authors":"Stefan Lukac, Sebastian Griewing, Elena Leinert, Davut Dayan, Benedikt Heitmeir, Markus Wallwiener, Wolfgang Janni, Visnja Fink, Florian Ebner","doi":"10.3390/clinpract15010008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> The survival in early breast cancer (BC) has been significantly improved thanks to numerous new drugs. Nevertheless, the information about the need for systemic therapy, especially chemotherapy, represents an additional stress factor for patients. A common coping strategy is searching for further information, traditionally via search engines or websites, but artificial intelligence (AI) is also increasingly being used. Who provides the most reliable information is now unclear. <b>Material and Methods</b>: AI in the form of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, Google, and the website of PINK, a provider of a prescription-based mobile health app for patients with BC, were compared to determine the validity of the statements on the five most common side effects of nineteen approved drugs and one drug with pending approval (Ribociclib) for the systemic treatment of BC. For this purpose, the drugs were divided into three groups: chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and endocrine therapy. The reference for the comparison was the prescribing information of the respective drug. A congruence score was calculated for the information on side effects: correct information (2 points), generally appropriate information (1 point), and otherwise no point. The information sources were then compared using a Friedmann test and a Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc test. <b>Results:</b> In the overall comparison, ChatGPT 3.5 received the best score with a congruence of 67.5%, followed by ChatGPT 4.0 with 67.0%, PINK with 59.5%, and with Google 40.0% (<i>p</i> < 0.001). There were also significant differences when comparing the individual subcategories, with the best congruence achieved by PINK (73.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.059) in the chemotherapy category, ChatGPT 4.0 (77.5%; <i>p</i> < 0.001) in the targeted therapy category, and ChatGPT 3.5 (<i>p</i> = 0.002) in the endocrine therapy category. <b>Conclusions:</b> Artificial intelligence and professional online information websites provide the most reliable information on the possible side effects of the systemic treatment of early breast cancer, but congruence with prescribing information is limited. The medical consultation should still be considered the best source of information.</p>","PeriodicalId":45306,"journal":{"name":"Clinics and Practice","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11764162/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract15010008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The survival in early breast cancer (BC) has been significantly improved thanks to numerous new drugs. Nevertheless, the information about the need for systemic therapy, especially chemotherapy, represents an additional stress factor for patients. A common coping strategy is searching for further information, traditionally via search engines or websites, but artificial intelligence (AI) is also increasingly being used. Who provides the most reliable information is now unclear. Material and Methods: AI in the form of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, Google, and the website of PINK, a provider of a prescription-based mobile health app for patients with BC, were compared to determine the validity of the statements on the five most common side effects of nineteen approved drugs and one drug with pending approval (Ribociclib) for the systemic treatment of BC. For this purpose, the drugs were divided into three groups: chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and endocrine therapy. The reference for the comparison was the prescribing information of the respective drug. A congruence score was calculated for the information on side effects: correct information (2 points), generally appropriate information (1 point), and otherwise no point. The information sources were then compared using a Friedmann test and a Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc test. Results: In the overall comparison, ChatGPT 3.5 received the best score with a congruence of 67.5%, followed by ChatGPT 4.0 with 67.0%, PINK with 59.5%, and with Google 40.0% (p < 0.001). There were also significant differences when comparing the individual subcategories, with the best congruence achieved by PINK (73.3%, p = 0.059) in the chemotherapy category, ChatGPT 4.0 (77.5%; p < 0.001) in the targeted therapy category, and ChatGPT 3.5 (p = 0.002) in the endocrine therapy category. Conclusions: Artificial intelligence and professional online information websites provide the most reliable information on the possible side effects of the systemic treatment of early breast cancer, but congruence with prescribing information is limited. The medical consultation should still be considered the best source of information.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinics and Practice
Clinics and Practice MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
91
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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