A Comparative Assessment of Large Language Models in Pediatric Dialysis: Reliability, Quality and Readability.

IF 1.2
Esra Ensari, Esra Nagehan Akyol Onder, Pelin Ertan
{"title":"A Comparative Assessment of Large Language Models in Pediatric Dialysis: Reliability, Quality and Readability.","authors":"Esra Ensari, Esra Nagehan Akyol Onder, Pelin Ertan","doi":"10.1111/1744-9987.70058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study evaluated the reliability, quality, and readability of ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA), Gemini (Google, Mountain View, CA), and Copilot (Microsoft Corp., Washington, DC) which are among the most widely used large language models (LLMs) today in answering frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to pediatric dialysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 45 FAQs were entered into LLM. The Modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) scale assessed reliability; the Global Quality Score (GQS) evaluated quality; and readability was assessed using five metrics: Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Questions were directed to the chat robots twice, on January 25, 2025, and February 1, 2025.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All three chatbots displayed high reliability, achieving median mDISCERN scores of 5. Quality scores on the GQS were similarly high, with median scores of 5 across platforms; however, Gemini exhibited greater variability (range 1-5) compared to ChatGPT-4o and Copilot (ranges 3-5). Readability scores revealed that chatbot responses were written at an advanced level.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found that LLMs responses to dialysis FAQs were reliable and high quality, but difficult to read; improving readability through expert-reviewed content could increase their impact on public health.</p>","PeriodicalId":94253,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"739-746"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-9987.70058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluated the reliability, quality, and readability of ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA), Gemini (Google, Mountain View, CA), and Copilot (Microsoft Corp., Washington, DC) which are among the most widely used large language models (LLMs) today in answering frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to pediatric dialysis.

Methods: A total of 45 FAQs were entered into LLM. The Modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) scale assessed reliability; the Global Quality Score (GQS) evaluated quality; and readability was assessed using five metrics: Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Questions were directed to the chat robots twice, on January 25, 2025, and February 1, 2025.

Results: All three chatbots displayed high reliability, achieving median mDISCERN scores of 5. Quality scores on the GQS were similarly high, with median scores of 5 across platforms; however, Gemini exhibited greater variability (range 1-5) compared to ChatGPT-4o and Copilot (ranges 3-5). Readability scores revealed that chatbot responses were written at an advanced level.

Conclusion: This study found that LLMs responses to dialysis FAQs were reliable and high quality, but difficult to read; improving readability through expert-reviewed content could increase their impact on public health.

儿童透析大语言模型的比较评估:可靠性、质量和可读性。
本研究评估了ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA)、Gemini (b谷歌,Mountain View, CA)和Copilot (Microsoft Corp., Washington, DC)的可靠性、质量和可读性,它们是当今在回答与儿科透析相关的常见问题(FAQs)中使用最广泛的大型语言模型(llm)。方法:将45个常见问题录入法学硕士。改进的DISCERN (mDISCERN)量表评估信度;全球质量评分(GQS)评估质量;使用5个指标评估可读性:Coleman-Liau指数(CLI)、简单的官样文章测量(SMOG)、射击雾指数(GFI)、Flesch Reading Ease (FRE)和Flesch- kincaid Grade Level (FKGL)。在2025年1月25日和2025年2月1日,两次向聊天机器人提问。结果:这三个聊天机器人都表现出很高的可靠性,mDISCERN得分中值为5分。GQS的质量得分也同样高,各平台的中位数得分为5分;然而,与chatgpt - 40和Copilot(范围3-5)相比,Gemini表现出更大的变异性(范围1-5)。可读性分数显示,聊天机器人的回复是在高级水平上编写的。结论:本研究发现LLMs对透析常见问题的反应可靠且质量高,但难以阅读;通过专家审查的内容提高可读性可以增加它们对公共卫生的影响。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信