Accuracy, Clarity, and Comprehensiveness of ChatGPT Outputs for Commonly Asked Questions About Living Kidney Donation

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q2 SURGERY

Clinical Transplantation Pub Date : 2025-09-02 DOI:10.1111/ctr.70303

Ria Singla, Sumiya Lodhi, Taddele Kibret, Januvi Jegatheswaran, Tamara Glavinovic, David Massicotte-Azarniouch, Jolanta Karpinski, Rinu Powell, Kevin Burns, Manish M. Sood, Ann Bugeja

{"title":"Accuracy, Clarity, and Comprehensiveness of ChatGPT Outputs for Commonly Asked Questions About Living Kidney Donation","authors":"Ria Singla, Sumiya Lodhi, Taddele Kibret, Januvi Jegatheswaran, Tamara Glavinovic, David Massicotte-Azarniouch, Jolanta Karpinski, Rinu Powell, Kevin Burns, Manish M. Sood, Ann Bugeja","doi":"10.1111/ctr.70303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The effectiveness of ChatGPT responses to common living kidney donation (LKD) queries remains unclear.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We surveyed nephrologists and living kidney donors/candidates to evaluate ChatGPT-3.5's accuracy, comprehensiveness, and clarity in answering common donation questions in English and French. Ratings used a 5-point Likert scale, with percentage agreement and modified Fleiss’ Kappa measuring inter-rater consistency.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The evaluation of ChatGPT-3.5's responses varied between nephrologists and kidney donors/candidates. Nephrologists showed moderate percentage agreement for English responses (50%–59%) and poor agreement for French responses (9%–45%). Kidney donors/candidates exhibited high agreement for English (90%–100%) but low for French (0%–77%). Inter-rater agreement among nephrologists was moderate for both English (Kappa 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.79, <i>p</i> < 0.0001) and French (Kappa 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.77, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). In contrast, inter-rater agreement was poor among donors/candidates for both English (Kappa −0.10, 95% CI: −0.14, −0.07, <i>p</i> = 0.99) and French (Kappa −0.03, 95% CI: −0.07, 0, <i>p</i> = 0.81).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>ChatGPT 3.5's responses to common LKD queries demonstrated limited agreement among nephrologists and kidney donors/donor candidates, highlighting its lack of reliability as a supplement to existing educational materials for living kidney donor programs in English and French.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10467,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Transplantation","volume":"39 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ctr.70303","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.70303","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The effectiveness of ChatGPT responses to common living kidney donation (LKD) queries remains unclear.

Methods

We surveyed nephrologists and living kidney donors/candidates to evaluate ChatGPT-3.5's accuracy, comprehensiveness, and clarity in answering common donation questions in English and French. Ratings used a 5-point Likert scale, with percentage agreement and modified Fleiss’ Kappa measuring inter-rater consistency.

Results

The evaluation of ChatGPT-3.5's responses varied between nephrologists and kidney donors/candidates. Nephrologists showed moderate percentage agreement for English responses (50%–59%) and poor agreement for French responses (9%–45%). Kidney donors/candidates exhibited high agreement for English (90%–100%) but low for French (0%–77%). Inter-rater agreement among nephrologists was moderate for both English (Kappa 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.79, p < 0.0001) and French (Kappa 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.77, p < 0.0001). In contrast, inter-rater agreement was poor among donors/candidates for both English (Kappa −0.10, 95% CI: −0.14, −0.07, p = 0.99) and French (Kappa −0.03, 95% CI: −0.07, 0, p = 0.81).

Conclusion

ChatGPT 3.5's responses to common LKD queries demonstrated limited agreement among nephrologists and kidney donors/donor candidates, highlighting its lack of reliability as a supplement to existing educational materials for living kidney donor programs in English and French.

查看原文本刊更多论文

关于活体肾脏捐赠的常见问题ChatGPT输出的准确性，清晰度和全面性

ChatGPT对常见活体肾脏捐赠（LKD）查询的应答效果尚不清楚。方法对肾脏学家和活体肾供者/候选人进行调查，评估ChatGPT-3.5在回答常见捐献问题时的准确性、全全性和清晰度。评分采用5分李克特量表，采用百分比一致性和改进的Fleiss Kappa量表来衡量评分者之间的一致性。结果对ChatGPT-3.5反应的评价在肾科医师和肾供者/候选人之间存在差异。肾病学家对英语应答的一致程度中等（50%-59%），对法语应答的一致程度较差（9%-45%）。肾脏供者/候选人对英语的一致性较高（90%-100%），但对法语的一致性较低（0%-77%）。英语（Kappa 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.79, p < 0.0001）和法语（Kappa 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.77, p < 0.0001）的肾病专家间一致性中等。相比之下，英语（Kappa - 0.10, 95% CI: - 0.14, - 0.07, p = 0.99）和法语（Kappa - 0.03, 95% CI: - 0.07, 0, p = 0.81）的捐赠者/候选人之间的评分一致性较差。结论ChatGPT 3.5对常见LKD问题的回答表明，肾脏学家和肾供者/候选供者之间的一致性有限，突出了其作为现有英语和法语活体肾供者项目教育材料补充的可靠性不足。

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

Clinical Transplantation 医学-外科

CiteScore

3.70

自引率

4.80%

发文量

286

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Transplantation: The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research aims to serve as a channel of rapid communication for all those involved in the care of patients who require, or have had, organ or tissue transplants, including: kidney, intestine, liver, pancreas, islets, heart, heart valves, lung, bone marrow, cornea, skin, bone, and cartilage, viable or stored. Published monthly, Clinical Transplantation’s scope is focused on the complete spectrum of present transplant therapies, as well as also those that are experimental or may become possible in future. Topics include: Immunology and immunosuppression; Patient preparation; Social, ethical, and psychological issues; Complications, short- and long-term results; Artificial organs; Donation and preservation of organ and tissue; Translational studies; Advances in tissue typing; Updates on transplant pathology;. Clinical and translational studies are particularly welcome, as well as focused reviews. Full-length papers and short communications are invited. Clinical reviews are encouraged, as well as seminal papers in basic science which might lead to immediate clinical application. Prominence is regularly given to the results of cooperative surveys conducted by the organ and tissue transplant registries. Clinical Transplantation: The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research is essential reading for clinicians and researchers in the diverse field of transplantation: surgeons; clinical immunologists; cryobiologists; hematologists; gastroenterologists; hepatologists; pulmonologists; nephrologists; cardiologists; and endocrinologists. It will also be of interest to sociologists, psychologists, research workers, and to all health professionals whose combined efforts will improve the prognosis of transplant recipients.