Sare Safi, Amir Golmakani, Saeed Rahmani, Nikoo Bayan, Seyed Mohamadmehdi Moshtaghion, Hadis Najafimehr, Haleh Kangari
{"title":"Evaluation of the large language models Chatbot's responses to frequently asked queries on refractive errors.","authors":"Sare Safi, Amir Golmakani, Saeed Rahmani, Nikoo Bayan, Seyed Mohamadmehdi Moshtaghion, Hadis Najafimehr, Haleh Kangari","doi":"10.1177/14604582261470624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>PurposeTo assess the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and reliability of Large Language Model chatbots in answering frequently asked questions about refractive errors.MethodsForty-four questions about refractive errors were posed to four chatbots, including Copilot, Perplexity, Gemini, and ChatGPT. Responses to each question were independently evaluated by three experts using a three-point accuracy scale. The readability of the chatbots' responses was evaluated using several indices. Similarity was assessed using Sentence-Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (SBERT). Inter-rater agreement among the graders was evaluated using the Gwet Agreement Coefficient 1 (AC1) statistic.ResultsThe overall agreement among the graders for all chatbot responses was almost perfect (Gwet AC1: 0.87). All chatbots received scores above 85% in every category, and there was no significant difference in chatbot accuracy scores (<i>P= 0.168</i>). The highest mean comprehensiveness score was observed for Perplexity (8.13 ± 0.95, <i>P</i> = 0.028). The similarity scores of the chatbots were very close to each other. All readability scores showed significant differences (<i>P</i><0.001) between the chatbots.ConclusionAll four chatbots showed comparable accuracy in answering questions about refractive errors. Readability levels of all chatbots exceeded public health recommended thresholds; however, ChatGPT produced relatively more accessible output.</p>","PeriodicalId":55069,"journal":{"name":"Health Informatics Journal","volume":"32 3","pages":"14604582261470624"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Informatics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14604582261470624","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
PurposeTo assess the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and reliability of Large Language Model chatbots in answering frequently asked questions about refractive errors.MethodsForty-four questions about refractive errors were posed to four chatbots, including Copilot, Perplexity, Gemini, and ChatGPT. Responses to each question were independently evaluated by three experts using a three-point accuracy scale. The readability of the chatbots' responses was evaluated using several indices. Similarity was assessed using Sentence-Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (SBERT). Inter-rater agreement among the graders was evaluated using the Gwet Agreement Coefficient 1 (AC1) statistic.ResultsThe overall agreement among the graders for all chatbot responses was almost perfect (Gwet AC1: 0.87). All chatbots received scores above 85% in every category, and there was no significant difference in chatbot accuracy scores (P= 0.168). The highest mean comprehensiveness score was observed for Perplexity (8.13 ± 0.95, P = 0.028). The similarity scores of the chatbots were very close to each other. All readability scores showed significant differences (P<0.001) between the chatbots.ConclusionAll four chatbots showed comparable accuracy in answering questions about refractive errors. Readability levels of all chatbots exceeded public health recommended thresholds; however, ChatGPT produced relatively more accessible output.
期刊介绍:
Health Informatics Journal is an international peer-reviewed journal. All papers submitted to Health Informatics Journal are subject to peer review by members of a carefully appointed editorial board. The journal operates a conventional single-blind reviewing policy in which the reviewer’s name is always concealed from the submitting author.