Evaluation of the large language models Chatbot's responses to frequently asked queries on refractive errors.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Health Informatics Journal Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-07-20 DOI:10.1177/14604582261470624
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.

大型语言模型的评估:聊天机器人对屈光不正常见问题的回答。
目的评估大型语言模型聊天机器人回答屈光不正常见问题的准确性、全面性和可靠性。方法向Copilot、Perplexity、Gemini和ChatGPT 4个聊天机器人提出44个关于屈光不正的问题。对每个问题的回答由三位专家使用三点准确度量表独立评估。聊天机器人回答的可读性通过几个指标来评估。使用来自变压器的句子双向编码器表示(SBERT)来评估相似性。使用Gwet协议系数1 (AC1)统计来评估评分者之间的一致性。结果评分者对所有聊天机器人反应的总体一致性几乎是完美的(Gwet AC1: 0.87)。所有聊天机器人在每个类别的得分都在85%以上,聊天机器人的准确率得分没有显著差异(P= 0.168)。Perplexity的综合评分最高(8.13±0.95,P = 0.028)。聊天机器人的相似度得分非常接近。所有可读性评分差异均有统计学意义(P
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
Health Informatics Journal
Health Informatics Journal HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-MEDICAL INFORMATICS
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 months
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.
×
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