生成式人工智能在回答患者有关结直肠癌手术的询问时的交流能力。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Min Hyeong Jo, Min-Jun Kim, Heung-Kwon Oh, Mi Jeong Choi, Hye-Rim Shin, Tae-Gyun Lee, Hong-Min Ahn, Duck-Woo Kim, Sung-Bum Kang
{"title":"生成式人工智能在回答患者有关结直肠癌手术的询问时的交流能力。","authors":"Min Hyeong Jo, Min-Jun Kim, Heung-Kwon Oh, Mi Jeong Choi, Hye-Rim Shin, Tae-Gyun Lee, Hong-Min Ahn, Duck-Woo Kim, Sung-Bum Kang","doi":"10.1007/s00384-024-04670-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To examine the ability of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) to answer patients' questions regarding colorectal cancer (CRC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten clinically relevant questions about CRC were selected from top-rated hospitals' websites and patient surveys and presented to three GAI tools (Chatbot Generative Pre-Trained Transformer [GPT-4], Google Bard, and CLOVA X). Their responses were compared with answers from the CRC information book. Response evaluation was performed by two groups, each consisting of five healthcare professionals (HCP) and patients. Each question was scored on a 1-5 Likert scale based on four evaluation criteria (maximum score, 20 points/question).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In an analysis including only HCPs, the information book scored 11.8 ± 1.2, GPT-4 scored 13.5 ± 1.1, Google Bard scored 11.5 ± 0.7, and CLOVA X scored 12.2 ± 1.4 (P = 0.001). The score of GPT-4 was significantly higher than those of the information book (P = 0.020) and Google Bard (P = 0.001). In an analysis including only patients, the information book scored 14.1 ± 1.4, GPT-4 scored 15.2 ± 1.8, Google Bard scored 15.5 ± 1.8, and CLOVA X scored 14.4 ± 1.8, without significant differences (P = 0.234). When both groups of evaluators were included, the information book scored 13.0 ± 0.9, GPT-4 scored 14.4 ± 1.2, Google Bard scored 13.5 ± 1.0, and CLOVA X scored 13.3 ± 1.5 (P = 0.070).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The three GAIs demonstrated similar or better communicative competence than the information book regarding questions related to CRC surgery in Korean. If high-quality medical information provided by GAI is supervised properly by HCPs and published as an information book, it could be helpful for patients to obtain accurate information and make informed decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189990/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Communicative competence of generative artificial intelligence in responding to patient queries about colorectal cancer surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Min Hyeong Jo, Min-Jun Kim, Heung-Kwon Oh, Mi Jeong Choi, Hye-Rim Shin, Tae-Gyun Lee, Hong-Min Ahn, Duck-Woo Kim, Sung-Bum Kang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00384-024-04670-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To examine the ability of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) to answer patients' questions regarding colorectal cancer (CRC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten clinically relevant questions about CRC were selected from top-rated hospitals' websites and patient surveys and presented to three GAI tools (Chatbot Generative Pre-Trained Transformer [GPT-4], Google Bard, and CLOVA X). Their responses were compared with answers from the CRC information book. Response evaluation was performed by two groups, each consisting of five healthcare professionals (HCP) and patients. Each question was scored on a 1-5 Likert scale based on four evaluation criteria (maximum score, 20 points/question).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In an analysis including only HCPs, the information book scored 11.8 ± 1.2, GPT-4 scored 13.5 ± 1.1, Google Bard scored 11.5 ± 0.7, and CLOVA X scored 12.2 ± 1.4 (P = 0.001). The score of GPT-4 was significantly higher than those of the information book (P = 0.020) and Google Bard (P = 0.001). In an analysis including only patients, the information book scored 14.1 ± 1.4, GPT-4 scored 15.2 ± 1.8, Google Bard scored 15.5 ± 1.8, and CLOVA X scored 14.4 ± 1.8, without significant differences (P = 0.234). When both groups of evaluators were included, the information book scored 13.0 ± 0.9, GPT-4 scored 14.4 ± 1.2, Google Bard scored 13.5 ± 1.0, and CLOVA X scored 13.3 ± 1.5 (P = 0.070).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The three GAIs demonstrated similar or better communicative competence than the information book regarding questions related to CRC surgery in Korean. If high-quality medical information provided by GAI is supervised properly by HCPs and published as an information book, it could be helpful for patients to obtain accurate information and make informed decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189990/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04670-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04670-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究生成式人工智能(GAI)回答患者有关结直肠癌(CRC)问题的能力:从排名靠前的医院网站和患者调查中选取了十个与 CRC 相关的临床问题,并将其提交给三个 GAI 工具(聊天机器人生成预训练转换器 [GPT-4]、谷歌巴德和 CLOVA X)。他们的回答与 CRC 信息手册中的答案进行了比较。回答评估由两组人员进行,每组由五名医疗保健专业人员(HCP)和患者组成。每个问题都根据四项评估标准以 1-5 分的李克特量表进行评分(最高分,20 分/问题):在仅包括医护人员的分析中,信息手册得分为 11.8 ± 1.2,GPT-4 得分为 13.5 ± 1.1,Google Bard 得分为 11.5 ± 0.7,CLOVA X 得分为 12.2 ± 1.4(P = 0.001)。GPT-4 的得分明显高于信息手册(P = 0.020)和 Google Bard(P = 0.001)。在仅包括患者的分析中,信息手册得分为 14.1 ± 1.4,GPT-4 得分为 15.2 ± 1.8,Google Bard 得分为 15.5 ± 1.8,CLOVA X 得分为 14.4 ± 1.8,无显著差异(P = 0.234)。如果将两组评估者都包括在内,信息手册得分 13.0 ± 0.9,GPT-4 得分 14.4 ± 1.2,Google Bard 得分 13.5 ± 1.0,CLOVA X 得分 13.3 ± 1.5(P = 0.070):结论:在用韩语回答与 CRC 手术相关的问题时,三个 GAI 所表现出的沟通能力与信息手册相似或更好。如果 GAI 提供的高质量医疗信息能得到 HCP 的适当监督,并以信息手册的形式出版,将有助于患者获得准确的信息并做出明智的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Communicative competence of generative artificial intelligence in responding to patient queries about colorectal cancer surgery.

Communicative competence of generative artificial intelligence in responding to patient queries about colorectal cancer surgery.

Purpose: To examine the ability of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) to answer patients' questions regarding colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods: Ten clinically relevant questions about CRC were selected from top-rated hospitals' websites and patient surveys and presented to three GAI tools (Chatbot Generative Pre-Trained Transformer [GPT-4], Google Bard, and CLOVA X). Their responses were compared with answers from the CRC information book. Response evaluation was performed by two groups, each consisting of five healthcare professionals (HCP) and patients. Each question was scored on a 1-5 Likert scale based on four evaluation criteria (maximum score, 20 points/question).

Results: In an analysis including only HCPs, the information book scored 11.8 ± 1.2, GPT-4 scored 13.5 ± 1.1, Google Bard scored 11.5 ± 0.7, and CLOVA X scored 12.2 ± 1.4 (P = 0.001). The score of GPT-4 was significantly higher than those of the information book (P = 0.020) and Google Bard (P = 0.001). In an analysis including only patients, the information book scored 14.1 ± 1.4, GPT-4 scored 15.2 ± 1.8, Google Bard scored 15.5 ± 1.8, and CLOVA X scored 14.4 ± 1.8, without significant differences (P = 0.234). When both groups of evaluators were included, the information book scored 13.0 ± 0.9, GPT-4 scored 14.4 ± 1.2, Google Bard scored 13.5 ± 1.0, and CLOVA X scored 13.3 ± 1.5 (P = 0.070).

Conclusion: The three GAIs demonstrated similar or better communicative competence than the information book regarding questions related to CRC surgery in Korean. If high-quality medical information provided by GAI is supervised properly by HCPs and published as an information book, it could be helpful for patients to obtain accurate information and make informed decisions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信