Are ChatGPT's Responses to Urologic Inquiries Readable and Supported by AUA Guidelines?

IF 0.5 Q4 NURSING
Chase Morrison, Jack Vercnocke, Ana M. Moser, Michael L. Cher, Steven Lucas, John Cochrane, Aron Liaw, Kevin Ginsburg
{"title":"Are ChatGPT's Responses to Urologic Inquiries Readable and Supported by AUA Guidelines?","authors":"Chase Morrison,&nbsp;Jack Vercnocke,&nbsp;Ana M. Moser,&nbsp;Michael L. Cher,&nbsp;Steven Lucas,&nbsp;John Cochrane,&nbsp;Aron Liaw,&nbsp;Kevin Ginsburg","doi":"10.1111/ijun.70023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Are ChatGPT 3.5's responses to patient inquiries about urologic health conditions (1) supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines and (2) readable and accessible to patients? Artificial intelligence technology continues to increase in popularity, but it still must be heavily vetted to ensure safety and accuracy prior to clinical implementation. ChatGPT has varying success when it comes to accurately answering medical questions. We wanted to see if the chatbot's responses to urologic inquiries were conveyed in a patient-friendly manner and supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines. Our results were compared to those of prior studies looking at ChatGPT's performance on the United States Medical Licensing Examination and American Urological Association Self-Assessment Study Programme. ChatGPT's responses to inquiries were compared to guideline statements set forth by the American Urological Association on its website. In this qualitative experiment, 30 prompts were written from a patient's perspective covering multiple urologic domains. The prompts were posed to ChatGPT 3.5 with responses recorded verbatim and graded with a Support Score and Quality Score by eight evaluators consisting of five board-certified urologists and three current urology residents. Readability of the responses was assessed with Flesch–Kincaid Readability Grade Level scores and statistical analysis was performed with Stata version 15.1. 20/30 (66%) of ChatGPT's responses were supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines (median SS of 4, IQR 3–5), although responses to oncology questions were less supported (5/12 supported). 11/30 (37%) of responses were deemed high quality (median QS of 4, IQR 3–5) with responses related to infertility having the highest quality (3/4). The average Flesch–Kincaid Readability Grade Level score across all domains was 18, equivalent to a college graduate reading level. Most responses from ChatGPT 3.5 to urologic inquiries were supported by current American Urological Association guidelines, but the majority were of overall low quality. Responses were at a college graduate reading level, making them inaccessible to most patients. ChatGPT 3.5 has limitations in its ability to answer urologic health questions in a patient-friendly manner, but future versions may improve its utility.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50281,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Urological Nursing","volume":"19 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Urological Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijun.70023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Are ChatGPT 3.5's responses to patient inquiries about urologic health conditions (1) supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines and (2) readable and accessible to patients? Artificial intelligence technology continues to increase in popularity, but it still must be heavily vetted to ensure safety and accuracy prior to clinical implementation. ChatGPT has varying success when it comes to accurately answering medical questions. We wanted to see if the chatbot's responses to urologic inquiries were conveyed in a patient-friendly manner and supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines. Our results were compared to those of prior studies looking at ChatGPT's performance on the United States Medical Licensing Examination and American Urological Association Self-Assessment Study Programme. ChatGPT's responses to inquiries were compared to guideline statements set forth by the American Urological Association on its website. In this qualitative experiment, 30 prompts were written from a patient's perspective covering multiple urologic domains. The prompts were posed to ChatGPT 3.5 with responses recorded verbatim and graded with a Support Score and Quality Score by eight evaluators consisting of five board-certified urologists and three current urology residents. Readability of the responses was assessed with Flesch–Kincaid Readability Grade Level scores and statistical analysis was performed with Stata version 15.1. 20/30 (66%) of ChatGPT's responses were supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines (median SS of 4, IQR 3–5), although responses to oncology questions were less supported (5/12 supported). 11/30 (37%) of responses were deemed high quality (median QS of 4, IQR 3–5) with responses related to infertility having the highest quality (3/4). The average Flesch–Kincaid Readability Grade Level score across all domains was 18, equivalent to a college graduate reading level. Most responses from ChatGPT 3.5 to urologic inquiries were supported by current American Urological Association guidelines, but the majority were of overall low quality. Responses were at a college graduate reading level, making them inaccessible to most patients. ChatGPT 3.5 has limitations in its ability to answer urologic health questions in a patient-friendly manner, but future versions may improve its utility.

ChatGPT对泌尿科查询的回应是否可读并得到AUA指南的支持?
ChatGPT 3.5对患者询问泌尿系统健康状况的回应是否(1)得到美国泌尿协会指南的支持,(2)可读且便于患者访问?人工智能技术越来越受欢迎,但在临床应用之前,它仍然必须经过严格的审查,以确保安全性和准确性。ChatGPT在准确回答医学问题方面取得了不同程度的成功。我们想看看聊天机器人对泌尿系统问题的回答是否以一种对病人友好的方式传达,并得到美国泌尿协会指南的支持。我们的研究结果与之前关于ChatGPT在美国医师执照考试和美国泌尿学会自我评估研究计划中的表现的研究结果进行了比较。ChatGPT对询问的回答与美国泌尿学协会在其网站上发布的指导方针进行了比较。在这个定性实验中,从患者的角度写了30个提示,涵盖了多个泌尿学领域。这些提示被提交给ChatGPT 3.5,并逐字记录答案,并由8名评估者(包括5名委员会认证的泌尿科医生和3名目前的泌尿科住院医生)根据支持评分和质量评分进行评分。采用Flesch-Kincaid Readability Grade Level评分评估问卷的可读性,采用Stata 15.1版本进行统计分析。20/30(66%)的ChatGPT应答得到了美国泌尿外科协会指南的支持(中位SS为4,IQR为3-5),尽管对肿瘤学问题的应答得到了较少的支持(5/12)。11/30(37%)的应答被认为是高质量的(QS中位数为4,IQR为3-5),与不孕症相关的应答质量最高(3/4)。所有领域的Flesch-Kincaid可读性等级平均得分为18分,相当于大学毕业生的阅读水平。ChatGPT 3.5对泌尿系统咨询的大多数回复得到了当前美国泌尿协会指南的支持,但大多数总体质量较低。他们的回答是大学毕业生的阅读水平,这使得大多数患者无法理解。ChatGPT 3.5在以对患者友好的方式回答泌尿系统健康问题方面存在局限性,但未来的版本可能会改进其实用性。
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
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Urological Nursing is an international peer-reviewed Journal for all nurses, non-specialist and specialist, who care for individuals with urological disorders. It is relevant for nurses working in a variety of settings: inpatient care, outpatient care, ambulatory care, community care, operating departments and specialist clinics. The Journal covers the whole spectrum of urological nursing skills and knowledge. It supports the publication of local issues of relevance to a wider international community to disseminate good practice. The International Journal of Urological Nursing is clinically focused, evidence-based and welcomes contributions in the following clinical and non-clinical areas: -General Urology- Continence care- Oncology- Andrology- Stoma care- Paediatric urology- Men’s health- Uro-gynaecology- Reconstructive surgery- Clinical audit- Clinical governance- Nurse-led services- Reflective analysis- Education- Management- Research- Leadership The Journal welcomes original research papers, practice development papers and literature reviews. It also invites shorter papers such as case reports, critical commentary, reflective analysis and reports of audit, as well as contributions to regular sections such as the media reviews section. The International Journal of Urological Nursing supports the development of academic writing within the specialty and particularly welcomes papers from young researchers or practitioners who are seeking to build a publication profile.
×
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