Navigating Accuracy and Clarity in Patient Education: The Role of AI Chatbots in Communicating Testicular Prosthesis Information.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Seref Coser, Bekir Aras, Ali Yasin Ozercan, Baki Numan Ozkaynak, Okan Alkis, Serdar Basboga, Ibrahim Guven Kartal, Halil Ibrahim Ivelik
{"title":"Navigating Accuracy and Clarity in Patient Education: The Role of AI Chatbots in Communicating Testicular Prosthesis Information.","authors":"Seref Coser, Bekir Aras, Ali Yasin Ozercan, Baki Numan Ozkaynak, Okan Alkis, Serdar Basboga, Ibrahim Guven Kartal, Halil Ibrahim Ivelik","doi":"10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20267905.97","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study investigated the quality and comprehensibility of responses generated by four different artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots (ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok) when queried about testicular prostheses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Google search using the keyword \"testicular prosthesis\" was conducted, and the 50 most frequently asked questions listed in the \"People Also Ask\" section were identified. These questions were categorized into preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative topics and were posed to four AI chatbots: ChatGPT, Google Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok. The responses were independently evaluated by four urologists using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), Modified DISCERN, and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials (PEMAT-P) scales to assess quality, reliability, and readability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>According to the GQS evaluation, the median scores for ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok were 4.75, 4.5, 4.75 and 4.875, respectively (<i>p</i> < 0.001). According to the Modified DISCERN scale, the scores were 2.75, 3.0, 3.75 and 3.0, respectively. The PEMAT-P understandability scores were 79.1%, 75.0%, 84.2% and 78.6%, respectively (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Similarly, the PEMAT-P actionability scores were 73.5%, 68.5%, 78.9% and 73.2%, respectively (<i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While all chatbots provided high-quality responses, their reliability was moderate. DeepSeek demonstrated the best performance across the evaluated metrics. These findings suggest that AI chatbots may serve as useful supplementary tools for patient education regarding testicular prostheses.</p>","PeriodicalId":48852,"journal":{"name":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","volume":"79 5","pages":"831-836"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20267905.97","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study investigated the quality and comprehensibility of responses generated by four different artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots (ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok) when queried about testicular prostheses.

Methods: A Google search using the keyword "testicular prosthesis" was conducted, and the 50 most frequently asked questions listed in the "People Also Ask" section were identified. These questions were categorized into preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative topics and were posed to four AI chatbots: ChatGPT, Google Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok. The responses were independently evaluated by four urologists using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), Modified DISCERN, and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials (PEMAT-P) scales to assess quality, reliability, and readability.

Results: According to the GQS evaluation, the median scores for ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok were 4.75, 4.5, 4.75 and 4.875, respectively (p < 0.001). According to the Modified DISCERN scale, the scores were 2.75, 3.0, 3.75 and 3.0, respectively. The PEMAT-P understandability scores were 79.1%, 75.0%, 84.2% and 78.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similarly, the PEMAT-P actionability scores were 73.5%, 68.5%, 78.9% and 73.2%, respectively (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: While all chatbots provided high-quality responses, their reliability was moderate. DeepSeek demonstrated the best performance across the evaluated metrics. These findings suggest that AI chatbots may serve as useful supplementary tools for patient education regarding testicular prostheses.

在患者教育中导航的准确性和清晰度:人工智能聊天机器人在交流睾丸假体信息中的作用。
背景:本研究调查了四种不同的人工智能(AI)聊天机器人(ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek和Grok)在询问睾丸假体时产生的响应的质量和可理解性。方法:使用关键词“睾丸假体”进行谷歌搜索,并在“人们也会问”部分中找出50个最常见的问题。这些问题被分为术前、围手术期和术后话题,并被提交给四个人工智能聊天机器人:ChatGPT、谷歌Gemini、DeepSeek和Grok。四名泌尿科医生使用全球质量量表(GQS)、改良的DISCERN和患者教育材料评估工具印刷材料(PEMAT-P)量表对反馈进行独立评估,以评估质量、可靠性和可读性。结果:根据GQS评价,ChatGPT、Gemini、DeepSeek和Grok的中位得分分别为4.75、4.5、4.75和4.875 (p < 0.001)。根据修正的辨析量表,得分分别为2.75、3.0、3.75和3.0。PEMAT-P可理解性评分分别为79.1%、75.0%、84.2%和78.6% (p < 0.001)。同样,PEMAT-P可操作性评分分别为73.5%、68.5%、78.9%和73.2% (p < 0.001)。结论:虽然所有的聊天机器人都提供了高质量的回答,但它们的可靠性是中等的。在所有评估指标中,DeepSeek表现出了最好的性能。这些发现表明,人工智能聊天机器人可以作为睾丸假体患者教育的有用补充工具。
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
Archivos Espanoles De Urologia
Archivos Espanoles De Urologia UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Archivos Españoles de Urología published since 1944, is an international peer review, susbscription Journal on Urology with original and review articles on different subjets in Urology: oncology, endourology, laparoscopic, andrology, lithiasis, pediatrics , urodynamics,... Case Report are also admitted.
×
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
小红书