{"title":"作为弱视教育工具的聊天机器人和亚太视光学学会网站的性能","authors":"Levent Doğan, MD, Gazi Bekir Özçakmakcı, MD, Ĭbrahim Edhem Yılmaz, MD","doi":"10.3928/01913913-20240409-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<section><h3>Purpose:</h3><p>To evaluate the understandability, actionability, and readability of responses provided by the website of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS), ChatGPT-3.5, Bard, and Bing Chat about amblyopia and the appropriateness of the responses generated by the chatbots.</p></section><section><h3>Method:</h3><p>Twenty-five questions provided by the AAPOS website were directed three times to fresh ChatGPT-3.5, Bard, and Bing Chat interfaces. Two experienced pediatric ophthalmologists categorized the responses of the chatbots in terms of their appropriateness. Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Coleman-Liau Index (CLI) were used to evaluate the readability of the responses of the AAPOS website and chatbots. Furthermore, the understandability scores were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT).</p></section><section><h3>Results:</h3><p>The appropriateness of the chatbots' responses was 84.0% for ChatGPT-3.5 and Bard and 80% for Bing Chat (<i>P</i> > .05). For understandability (mean PEMAT-U score AAPOS website: 81.5%, Bard: 77.6%, ChatGPT-3.5: 76.1%, and Bing Chat: 71.5%, <i>P</i> < .05) and actionability (mean PEMAT-A score AAPOS website: 74.6%, Bard: 69.2%, ChatGPT-3.5: 67.8%, and Bing Chat: 64.8%, <i>P</i> < .05), the AAPOs website scored better than the chat-bots. Three readability analyses showed that Bard had the highest mean score, followed by the AAPOS website, Bing Chat, and ChatGPT-3.5, and these scores were more challenging than the recommended level.</p></section><section><h3>Conclusions:</h3><p>Chatbots have the potential to provide detailed and appropriate responses at acceptable levels. The AAPOS website has the advantage of providing information that is more understandable and actionable. The AAPOS website and chatbots, especially Chat-GPT, provided difficult-to-read data for patient education regarding amblyopia.</p><p><strong>[<i>J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus</i>. 20XX;X(X):XXX–XXX.]</strong></p></section>","PeriodicalId":519537,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Performance of Chatbots and the AAPOS Website as a Tool for Amblyopia Education\",\"authors\":\"Levent Doğan, MD, Gazi Bekir Özçakmakcı, MD, Ĭbrahim Edhem Yılmaz, MD\",\"doi\":\"10.3928/01913913-20240409-01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<section><h3>Purpose:</h3><p>To evaluate the understandability, actionability, and readability of responses provided by the website of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS), ChatGPT-3.5, Bard, and Bing Chat about amblyopia and the appropriateness of the responses generated by the chatbots.</p></section><section><h3>Method:</h3><p>Twenty-five questions provided by the AAPOS website were directed three times to fresh ChatGPT-3.5, Bard, and Bing Chat interfaces. Two experienced pediatric ophthalmologists categorized the responses of the chatbots in terms of their appropriateness. Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Coleman-Liau Index (CLI) were used to evaluate the readability of the responses of the AAPOS website and chatbots. Furthermore, the understandability scores were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT).</p></section><section><h3>Results:</h3><p>The appropriateness of the chatbots' responses was 84.0% for ChatGPT-3.5 and Bard and 80% for Bing Chat (<i>P</i> > .05). For understandability (mean PEMAT-U score AAPOS website: 81.5%, Bard: 77.6%, ChatGPT-3.5: 76.1%, and Bing Chat: 71.5%, <i>P</i> < .05) and actionability (mean PEMAT-A score AAPOS website: 74.6%, Bard: 69.2%, ChatGPT-3.5: 67.8%, and Bing Chat: 64.8%, <i>P</i> < .05), the AAPOs website scored better than the chat-bots. Three readability analyses showed that Bard had the highest mean score, followed by the AAPOS website, Bing Chat, and ChatGPT-3.5, and these scores were more challenging than the recommended level.</p></section><section><h3>Conclusions:</h3><p>Chatbots have the potential to provide detailed and appropriate responses at acceptable levels. The AAPOS website has the advantage of providing information that is more understandable and actionable. The AAPOS website and chatbots, especially Chat-GPT, provided difficult-to-read data for patient education regarding amblyopia.</p><p><strong>[<i>J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus</i>. 20XX;X(X):XXX–XXX.]</strong></p></section>\",\"PeriodicalId\":519537,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3928/01913913-20240409-01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/01913913-20240409-01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Performance of Chatbots and the AAPOS Website as a Tool for Amblyopia Education
Purpose:
To evaluate the understandability, actionability, and readability of responses provided by the website of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS), ChatGPT-3.5, Bard, and Bing Chat about amblyopia and the appropriateness of the responses generated by the chatbots.
Method:
Twenty-five questions provided by the AAPOS website were directed three times to fresh ChatGPT-3.5, Bard, and Bing Chat interfaces. Two experienced pediatric ophthalmologists categorized the responses of the chatbots in terms of their appropriateness. Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Coleman-Liau Index (CLI) were used to evaluate the readability of the responses of the AAPOS website and chatbots. Furthermore, the understandability scores were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT).
Results:
The appropriateness of the chatbots' responses was 84.0% for ChatGPT-3.5 and Bard and 80% for Bing Chat (P > .05). For understandability (mean PEMAT-U score AAPOS website: 81.5%, Bard: 77.6%, ChatGPT-3.5: 76.1%, and Bing Chat: 71.5%, P < .05) and actionability (mean PEMAT-A score AAPOS website: 74.6%, Bard: 69.2%, ChatGPT-3.5: 67.8%, and Bing Chat: 64.8%, P < .05), the AAPOs website scored better than the chat-bots. Three readability analyses showed that Bard had the highest mean score, followed by the AAPOS website, Bing Chat, and ChatGPT-3.5, and these scores were more challenging than the recommended level.
Conclusions:
Chatbots have the potential to provide detailed and appropriate responses at acceptable levels. The AAPOS website has the advantage of providing information that is more understandable and actionable. The AAPOS website and chatbots, especially Chat-GPT, provided difficult-to-read data for patient education regarding amblyopia.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
