与深下上腹部穿孔器皮瓣乳房重建相关的视频内容质量:社交媒体平台与大型语言模型。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Annals of Plastic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-02 DOI:10.1097/SAP.0000000000004045
Manuel Viñuela Florido, Javier Suárez Aguilar, Andrés A Maldonado, Lara Cristóbal Velasco
{"title":"与深下上腹部穿孔器皮瓣乳房重建相关的视频内容质量:社交媒体平台与大型语言模型。","authors":"Manuel Viñuela Florido, Javier Suárez Aguilar, Andrés A Maldonado, Lara Cristóbal Velasco","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is currently one of the main options in breast reconstruction. The information about this surgery is critical for the patient, in order to choose the breast reconstruction method. Our study aims to analyze and compare the quality and accuracy of the information related to the DIEP flap reconstruction method provided by social media platforms (SMPs) and the new large language models (LLMs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 50 videos in English and Spanish were selected from the main SMPs (YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook) using the keywords \"DIEP flap\" and \"colgajo DIEP.\" The duration, number of likes, dislikes, number of visits, upload date, author, and the video category (institutional video, media, patient experience, academic, and surgery) were analyzed. 3 specific questions were asked to 2 new LLMs (ChatGPT and Google Bard). The quality of information in SMPs and LLMs was analyzed and compared by 2 independent board-certified plastic surgeons using the Journal of American Medical Association and DISCERN scales.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LLMs showed a statistically significant higher quality of information when compared with SMPs based on the DISCERN scores. The average DISCERN scores for answers given by ChatGPT and Google Bard were 54 ± 6.841 and 61.17 ± 6.306, respectively (good quality). In SMPs, the average scores were 2.31 ± 0.67 (insufficient quality) and 32.87 ± 9.62 (low quality) for the Journal of American Medical Association and DISCERN scales respectively. Thirty-eight percent of the videos in SMPs were performed by nonmedical authors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The quality of information for breast reconstruction using DIEP flaps from LLMs was considered good and significantly better than in SMPs. The information found in SMPs was insufficient and of low quality. Academic plastic surgeons have an opportunity to provide quality content on this type of reconstruction in LLM and SMPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of Video Content Related to Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: Social Media Platforms Versus Large Language Models.\",\"authors\":\"Manuel Viñuela Florido, Javier Suárez Aguilar, Andrés A Maldonado, Lara Cristóbal Velasco\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is currently one of the main options in breast reconstruction. The information about this surgery is critical for the patient, in order to choose the breast reconstruction method. Our study aims to analyze and compare the quality and accuracy of the information related to the DIEP flap reconstruction method provided by social media platforms (SMPs) and the new large language models (LLMs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 50 videos in English and Spanish were selected from the main SMPs (YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook) using the keywords \\\"DIEP flap\\\" and \\\"colgajo DIEP.\\\" The duration, number of likes, dislikes, number of visits, upload date, author, and the video category (institutional video, media, patient experience, academic, and surgery) were analyzed. 3 specific questions were asked to 2 new LLMs (ChatGPT and Google Bard). The quality of information in SMPs and LLMs was analyzed and compared by 2 independent board-certified plastic surgeons using the Journal of American Medical Association and DISCERN scales.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LLMs showed a statistically significant higher quality of information when compared with SMPs based on the DISCERN scores. The average DISCERN scores for answers given by ChatGPT and Google Bard were 54 ± 6.841 and 61.17 ± 6.306, respectively (good quality). In SMPs, the average scores were 2.31 ± 0.67 (insufficient quality) and 32.87 ± 9.62 (low quality) for the Journal of American Medical Association and DISCERN scales respectively. Thirty-eight percent of the videos in SMPs were performed by nonmedical authors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The quality of information for breast reconstruction using DIEP flaps from LLMs was considered good and significantly better than in SMPs. The information found in SMPs was insufficient and of low quality. Academic plastic surgeons have an opportunity to provide quality content on this type of reconstruction in LLM and SMPs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004045\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004045","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:下腹穿孔器(DIEP)皮瓣是目前乳房重建的主要选择之一。有关该手术的信息对患者选择乳房重建方法至关重要。我们的研究旨在分析和比较社交媒体平台(SMPs)和新的大型语言模型(LLMs)提供的 DIEP 皮瓣重建方法相关信息的质量和准确性:使用关键词 "DIEP 皮瓣 "和 "colgajo DIEP",从主要社交媒体平台(YouTube、Instagram 和 Facebook)上选取了 50 个英语和西班牙语视频。对视频的持续时间、点赞数、不点赞数、访问次数、上传日期、作者和视频类别(机构视频、媒体、患者体验、学术和手术)进行了分析。对 2 个新的 LLM(ChatGPT 和 Google Bard)提出了 3 个具体问题。两名独立的整形外科医师使用《美国医学会杂志》和 DISCERN 量表对 SMP 和 LLM 的信息质量进行了分析和比较:结果:根据 DISCERN 评分,LLM 与 SMP 相比,LLM 的信息质量明显更高。ChatGPT 和 Google Bard 所提供答案的平均 DISCERN 分数分别为 54 ± 6.841 和 61.17 ± 6.306(质量良好)。在 SMP 中,《美国医学会杂志》和 DISCERN 量表的平均得分分别为 2.31 ± 0.67(质量不足)和 32.87 ± 9.62(质量低)。SMP中38%的视频是由非医学作者制作的:结论:使用DIEP皮瓣进行乳房重建的信息质量在LLMs中被认为是良好的,明显优于SMPs。SMP中的信息不足且质量较低。学术整形外科医生有机会在 LLM 和 SMP 中提供有关此类重建的高质量内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality of Video Content Related to Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: Social Media Platforms Versus Large Language Models.

Introduction: The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is currently one of the main options in breast reconstruction. The information about this surgery is critical for the patient, in order to choose the breast reconstruction method. Our study aims to analyze and compare the quality and accuracy of the information related to the DIEP flap reconstruction method provided by social media platforms (SMPs) and the new large language models (LLMs).

Materials and methods: A total of 50 videos in English and Spanish were selected from the main SMPs (YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook) using the keywords "DIEP flap" and "colgajo DIEP." The duration, number of likes, dislikes, number of visits, upload date, author, and the video category (institutional video, media, patient experience, academic, and surgery) were analyzed. 3 specific questions were asked to 2 new LLMs (ChatGPT and Google Bard). The quality of information in SMPs and LLMs was analyzed and compared by 2 independent board-certified plastic surgeons using the Journal of American Medical Association and DISCERN scales.

Results: LLMs showed a statistically significant higher quality of information when compared with SMPs based on the DISCERN scores. The average DISCERN scores for answers given by ChatGPT and Google Bard were 54 ± 6.841 and 61.17 ± 6.306, respectively (good quality). In SMPs, the average scores were 2.31 ± 0.67 (insufficient quality) and 32.87 ± 9.62 (low quality) for the Journal of American Medical Association and DISCERN scales respectively. Thirty-eight percent of the videos in SMPs were performed by nonmedical authors.

Conclusions: The quality of information for breast reconstruction using DIEP flaps from LLMs was considered good and significantly better than in SMPs. The information found in SMPs was insufficient and of low quality. Academic plastic surgeons have an opportunity to provide quality content on this type of reconstruction in LLM and SMPs.

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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
×
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