Evaluating large language models in answering patient questions about eye removal surgeries.

IF 0.8 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Niloufar Bineshfar, Chloe Shields, Natalia Davila, Sugi Panneerselvam, Tejus Pradeep, Marissa K Shoji, Wendy W Lee
{"title":"Evaluating large language models in answering patient questions about eye removal surgeries.","authors":"Niloufar Bineshfar, Chloe Shields, Natalia Davila, Sugi Panneerselvam, Tejus Pradeep, Marissa K Shoji, Wendy W Lee","doi":"10.1080/01676830.2025.2559735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the performance of ChatGPT-4 and Gemini, two large language models (LLMs), in addressing frequently asked questions (FAQs) about eye removal surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A set of 24 FAQs related to enucleation and evisceration was identified through a Google search and categorized into preoperative, procedural, and postoperative topics. Each question was submitted three times to ChatGPT-4o and Gemini, and responses were evaluated for consistency, accuracy, appropriateness, and potential harm. Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Gemini exhibited higher response consistency compared to ChatGPT (<i>p</i> = 0.043), while ChatGPT produced longer responses (mean length: 169.3 vs. 109.9 words; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Gemini's responses were more readable, with a higher Flesch Reading Ease score (39.0 vs. 31.3, <i>p</i> = 0.001) and lower Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (11.6 vs. 14.0, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Both LLMs demonstrated comparable accuracy and low potential for harm, with 79.2% of Gemini responses and 77.1% of ChatGPT responses rated as completely correct. The sources cited by Gemini included academic institutions (91.7%) and medical practices (8.3%), while ChatGPT exclusively referenced academic sources.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT and Gemini showed comparable accuracy and low harm potential when addressing patient questions about eye removal surgeries. Gemini provided more consistent and readable responses, but both LLMs exceeded the recommended readability levels for patient education. These findings highlight the potential of LLMs to assist in patient communication and clinical education while underscoring the need for careful oversight in their implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47421,"journal":{"name":"Orbit-The International Journal on Orbital Disorders-Oculoplastic and Lacrimal Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orbit-The International Journal on Orbital Disorders-Oculoplastic and Lacrimal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01676830.2025.2559735","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of ChatGPT-4 and Gemini, two large language models (LLMs), in addressing frequently asked questions (FAQs) about eye removal surgeries.

Methods: A set of 24 FAQs related to enucleation and evisceration was identified through a Google search and categorized into preoperative, procedural, and postoperative topics. Each question was submitted three times to ChatGPT-4o and Gemini, and responses were evaluated for consistency, accuracy, appropriateness, and potential harm. Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores.

Results: Gemini exhibited higher response consistency compared to ChatGPT (p = 0.043), while ChatGPT produced longer responses (mean length: 169.3 vs. 109.9 words; p < 0.001). Gemini's responses were more readable, with a higher Flesch Reading Ease score (39.0 vs. 31.3, p = 0.001) and lower Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (11.6 vs. 14.0, p < 0.001). Both LLMs demonstrated comparable accuracy and low potential for harm, with 79.2% of Gemini responses and 77.1% of ChatGPT responses rated as completely correct. The sources cited by Gemini included academic institutions (91.7%) and medical practices (8.3%), while ChatGPT exclusively referenced academic sources.

Conclusions: ChatGPT and Gemini showed comparable accuracy and low harm potential when addressing patient questions about eye removal surgeries. Gemini provided more consistent and readable responses, but both LLMs exceeded the recommended readability levels for patient education. These findings highlight the potential of LLMs to assist in patient communication and clinical education while underscoring the need for careful oversight in their implementation.

评估大型语言模型在回答患者关于眼部摘除手术的问题。
目的:评价ChatGPT-4和Gemini这两种大型语言模型(llm)在解决眼部摘除手术常见问题(FAQs)方面的性能。方法:通过谷歌检索确定24个与去核和内脏切除相关的常见问题,并将其分类为术前、手术和术后主题。每个问题都被提交给chatgpt - 40和Gemini三次,并对答案的一致性、准确性、适当性和潜在危害进行评估。使用Flesch Reading Ease和Flesch- kincaid Grade Level分数评估可读性。结果:与ChatGPT相比,Gemini表现出更高的反应一致性(p = 0.043),而ChatGPT产生更长的反应(平均长度:169.3对109.9个单词;p = 0.001)和更低的Flesch-Kincaid等级水平(11.6对14.0,p结论:ChatGPT和Gemini在回答患者关于眼睛摘除手术的问题时表现出相当的准确性和低的潜在危害。双子座提供了更一致和可读的回答,但两个法学硕士都超过了推荐的患者教育可读性水平。这些发现强调了法学硕士在帮助患者沟通和临床教育方面的潜力,同时强调了在实施过程中仔细监督的必要性。
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
2.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
136
期刊介绍: Orbit is the international medium covering developments and results from the variety of medical disciplines that overlap and converge in the field of orbital disorders: ophthalmology, otolaryngology, reconstructive and maxillofacial surgery, medicine and endocrinology, radiology, radiotherapy and oncology, neurology, neuroophthalmology and neurosurgery, pathology and immunology, haematology.
×
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