Artificial intelligence in endocrine practice: comparing ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude for adrenal incidentaloma care.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 Medicine
Özge Baş Aksu, Rıfat Furkan Aydın, Asena Gökçay Canpolat, Özgür Demir, Mustafa Şahin, Rıfat Emral, Sevim Güllü
{"title":"Artificial intelligence in endocrine practice: comparing ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude for adrenal incidentaloma care.","authors":"Özge Baş Aksu, Rıfat Furkan Aydın, Asena Gökçay Canpolat, Özgür Demir, Mustafa Şahin, Rıfat Emral, Sevim Güllü","doi":"10.1007/s40618-025-02715-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The clinical use of artificial intelligence (AI) is expanding in endocrinology, yet the performance of large language models (LLMs) in managing adrenal incidentalomas remains uncertain. To compare the performance of four LLMs-ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o1, Google Gemini 2.0, and Claude 3.5-on guideline-based queries and clinical scenarios involving adrenal incidentalomas.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, 34 guideline-derived questions and four case scenarios were presented to the LLMs, covering diagnosis, treatment and follow-up, patient questions, and clinical cases. Six endocrinologists evaluated responses using Likert scales assessing hallucination tendency, quality, usability, reliability, and accuracy. Readability metrics and word counts were also analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were found between models in diagnosis (p = 0.86-0.72), treatment and follow-up (p = 0.46-0.10), and patient question (p = 0.78-0.10) categories. However, in complex cases, ChatGPT-4o outperformed ChatGPT-o1 with higher scores in hallucination control (6.5 ± 0.8 vs. 4.8 ± 0.8), quality (6.2 ± 0.8 vs. 5.0 ± 0.6), and usability (4.5 ± 0.8 vs. 3.3 ± 0.5) (all p < 0.05). Readability analysis revealed high text complexity (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10.6-17.4), and inter-rater reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.876-0.961, p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LLMs show potential as decision-support tools in adrenal incidentaloma management. While their performance is comparable in routine tasks, significant differences arise in complex cases, highlighting the need for model selection, human oversight, and attention to readability in endocrine practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":48802,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endocrinological Investigation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Endocrinological Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-025-02715-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The clinical use of artificial intelligence (AI) is expanding in endocrinology, yet the performance of large language models (LLMs) in managing adrenal incidentalomas remains uncertain. To compare the performance of four LLMs-ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o1, Google Gemini 2.0, and Claude 3.5-on guideline-based queries and clinical scenarios involving adrenal incidentalomas.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 34 guideline-derived questions and four case scenarios were presented to the LLMs, covering diagnosis, treatment and follow-up, patient questions, and clinical cases. Six endocrinologists evaluated responses using Likert scales assessing hallucination tendency, quality, usability, reliability, and accuracy. Readability metrics and word counts were also analyzed.

Results: No significant differences were found between models in diagnosis (p = 0.86-0.72), treatment and follow-up (p = 0.46-0.10), and patient question (p = 0.78-0.10) categories. However, in complex cases, ChatGPT-4o outperformed ChatGPT-o1 with higher scores in hallucination control (6.5 ± 0.8 vs. 4.8 ± 0.8), quality (6.2 ± 0.8 vs. 5.0 ± 0.6), and usability (4.5 ± 0.8 vs. 3.3 ± 0.5) (all p < 0.05). Readability analysis revealed high text complexity (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10.6-17.4), and inter-rater reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.876-0.961, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: LLMs show potential as decision-support tools in adrenal incidentaloma management. While their performance is comparable in routine tasks, significant differences arise in complex cases, highlighting the need for model selection, human oversight, and attention to readability in endocrine practice.

人工智能在内分泌实践中的应用:比较ChatGPT、Gemini和Claude在肾上腺偶发瘤护理中的应用。
目的:人工智能(AI)在内分泌学中的临床应用正在扩大,但大语言模型(llm)在管理肾上腺偶发瘤中的表现仍不确定。比较四种llms (chatgpt - 40、chatgpt - 01、谷歌Gemini 2.0和Claude 3.5)在基于指南的查询和涉及肾上腺偶发瘤的临床情况下的表现。方法:在本横断面研究中,向LLMs提出了34个指南衍生问题和4个病例场景,涵盖诊断,治疗和随访,患者问题和临床病例。六名内分泌学家使用李克特量表评估幻觉倾向、质量、可用性、可靠性和准确性。可读性指标和字数也进行了分析。结果:各模型在诊断(p = 0.86 ~ 0.72)、治疗与随访(p = 0.46 ~ 0.10)、患者提问(p = 0.78 ~ 0.10)类别上均无显著差异。然而,在复杂病例中,chatgpt - 40在幻觉控制(6.5±0.8比4.8±0.8)、质量(6.2±0.8比5.0±0.6)和可用性(4.5±0.8比3.3±0.5)方面的得分更高,优于chatgpt - 1(均为p)。虽然他们在日常任务中的表现是相当的,但在复杂的情况下会出现显著的差异,这突出了在内分泌实践中需要选择模型、人为监督和注意可读性。
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
Journal of Endocrinological Investigation
Journal of Endocrinological Investigation ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
7.40%
发文量
242
期刊介绍: The Journal of Endocrinological Investigation is a well-established, e-only endocrine journal founded 36 years ago in 1978. It is the official journal of the Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE), established in 1964. Other Italian societies in the endocrinology and metabolism field are affiliated to the journal: Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine, Italian Society of Obesity, Italian Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, Clinical Endocrinologists’ Association, Thyroid Association, Endocrine Surgical Units Association, Italian Society of Pharmacology.
×
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