Are chatbots a reliable source for patient frequently asked questions on neck masses?

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Sholem Hack, Shibli Alsleibi, Naseem Saleh, Eran E Alon, Naomi Rabinovics, Eric Remer
{"title":"Are chatbots a reliable source for patient frequently asked questions on neck masses?","authors":"Sholem Hack, Shibli Alsleibi, Naseem Saleh, Eran E Alon, Naomi Rabinovics, Eric Remer","doi":"10.1007/s00405-025-09433-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the reliability and accuracy of Large Language Models in answering patient Frequently Asked Questions about adult neck masses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-four questions from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery were presented to ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. Five independent otolaryngologists evaluated responses using six criteria: accuracy, extensiveness, misleading information, resource quality, guideline citations, and overall reliability. Statistical analysis used Fisher's exact tests and Fleiss' Kappa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All models showed high reliability (91.7-100%). Paid GPT and Gemini achieved highest accuracy (95.8%). Extensiveness varied significantly (p = 0.012), with Gemini scoring lowest (62.5%). Resource quality ranged from 58.3% (Claude) to 100% (Paid GPT). Guideline citations were highest for GPT models (50%) and lowest for Gemini (16.7%). Misleading information was rare (0-16.7%). Inter-rater reliability was near-perfect across five reviewers (κ = 0.95).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Large Language Models demonstrate high reliability and accuracy for neck mass patient education, with paid versions showing marginally better performance. While promising as educational tools, variable guideline adherence and occasional misinformation suggest they should complement rather than replace professional medical advice.</p>","PeriodicalId":11952,"journal":{"name":"European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology","volume":" ","pages":"4273-4282"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-025-09433-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the reliability and accuracy of Large Language Models in answering patient Frequently Asked Questions about adult neck masses.

Methods: Twenty-four questions from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery were presented to ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. Five independent otolaryngologists evaluated responses using six criteria: accuracy, extensiveness, misleading information, resource quality, guideline citations, and overall reliability. Statistical analysis used Fisher's exact tests and Fleiss' Kappa.

Results: All models showed high reliability (91.7-100%). Paid GPT and Gemini achieved highest accuracy (95.8%). Extensiveness varied significantly (p = 0.012), with Gemini scoring lowest (62.5%). Resource quality ranged from 58.3% (Claude) to 100% (Paid GPT). Guideline citations were highest for GPT models (50%) and lowest for Gemini (16.7%). Misleading information was rare (0-16.7%). Inter-rater reliability was near-perfect across five reviewers (κ = 0.95).

Conclusion: Large Language Models demonstrate high reliability and accuracy for neck mass patient education, with paid versions showing marginally better performance. While promising as educational tools, variable guideline adherence and occasional misinformation suggest they should complement rather than replace professional medical advice.

聊天机器人是患者关于颈部肿块的常见问题的可靠来源吗?
目的:评价大型语言模型在回答成人颈部肿块患者常见问题时的可靠性和准确性。方法:将来自美国耳鼻喉头颈外科学会的24个问题提交给ChatGPT、Claude和Gemini。五名独立的耳鼻喉科医生使用六个标准来评估回答:准确性、广泛性、误导性信息、资源质量、指南引用和总体可靠性。统计分析采用Fisher的精确检验和Fleiss的Kappa检验。结果:各模型均具有较高的信度(91.7 ~ 100%)。付费GPT和Gemini的准确率最高(95.8%)。广泛性差异显著(p = 0.012),双子座得分最低(62.5%)。资源质量范围从58.3%(克劳德)到100%(付费GPT)。GPT模型的指南引用率最高(50%),Gemini模型最低(16.7%)。误导信息很少(0-16.7%)。五名评论者之间的信度接近完美(κ = 0.95)。结论:大型语言模型对颈部肿块患者教育具有较高的可靠性和准确性,付费版本的效果略好。虽然作为教育工具很有希望,但指南的遵守情况不一,偶尔也会出现错误信息,这表明它们应该补充而不是取代专业医疗建议。
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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
537
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Official Journal of European Union of Medical Specialists – ORL Section and Board Official Journal of Confederation of European Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Head and Neck Surgery "European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology" publishes original clinical reports and clinically relevant experimental studies, as well as short communications presenting new results of special interest. With peer review by a respected international editorial board and prompt English-language publication, the journal provides rapid dissemination of information by authors from around the world. This particular feature makes it the journal of choice for readers who want to be informed about the continuing state of the art concerning basic sciences and the diagnosis and management of diseases of the head and neck on an international level. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology was founded in 1864 as "Archiv für Ohrenheilkunde" by A. von Tröltsch, A. Politzer and H. Schwartze.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信