泌尿系统癌症患者能否依靠人工智能聊天机器人做出治疗决定?

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Anil Erkan , Akif Koc , Deniz Barali , Atilla Satir , Salim Zengin , Metin Kilic , Gokce Dundar , Muhammet Guzelsoy
{"title":"泌尿系统癌症患者能否依靠人工智能聊天机器人做出治疗决定?","authors":"Anil Erkan ,&nbsp;Akif Koc ,&nbsp;Deniz Barali ,&nbsp;Atilla Satir ,&nbsp;Salim Zengin ,&nbsp;Metin Kilic ,&nbsp;Gokce Dundar ,&nbsp;Muhammet Guzelsoy","doi":"10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>In the era of artificial intelligence, almost half of the patients use the internet to get information about their diseases. Our study aims to demonstrate the reliability of the information provided by artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) about urogenital cancer treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The most frequently searched keyword about prostate, bladder, kidney, and testicular cancer treatment via Google Trends was asked to 3 different AICs (ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot). The answers were evaluated by 5 different examiners in terms of readability, understandability, actionability, reliability, and transparency.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The DISCERN score evaluation indicates that ChatGPT and Gemini provided moderate quality information, while Copilot's quality was low. (Total DISCERN scores; 41, 42, 35, respectively). PEMAT-P Understandability scores were low (40%) and PEMAT-P Actionability scores were moderate only for Gemini (60%) and low for the others (40%). Their readability according to the Coleman-Liau index was above the college level (16.9, 17.2, 16, respectively).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In the era of artificial intelligence, patients will inevitably use AICs due to their easy and fast accessibility. However, patients need to recognize that AICs do not provide stage-specific treatment options, but only moderate-quality, low-reliability information about the disease, as well as information that is very difficult to read.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Patients With Urogenital Cancer Rely on Artificial Intelligence Chatbots for Treatment Decisions?\",\"authors\":\"Anil Erkan ,&nbsp;Akif Koc ,&nbsp;Deniz Barali ,&nbsp;Atilla Satir ,&nbsp;Salim Zengin ,&nbsp;Metin Kilic ,&nbsp;Gokce Dundar ,&nbsp;Muhammet Guzelsoy\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>In the era of artificial intelligence, almost half of the patients use the internet to get information about their diseases. Our study aims to demonstrate the reliability of the information provided by artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) about urogenital cancer treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The most frequently searched keyword about prostate, bladder, kidney, and testicular cancer treatment via Google Trends was asked to 3 different AICs (ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot). The answers were evaluated by 5 different examiners in terms of readability, understandability, actionability, reliability, and transparency.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The DISCERN score evaluation indicates that ChatGPT and Gemini provided moderate quality information, while Copilot's quality was low. (Total DISCERN scores; 41, 42, 35, respectively). PEMAT-P Understandability scores were low (40%) and PEMAT-P Actionability scores were moderate only for Gemini (60%) and low for the others (40%). Their readability according to the Coleman-Liau index was above the college level (16.9, 17.2, 16, respectively).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In the era of artificial intelligence, patients will inevitably use AICs due to their easy and fast accessibility. However, patients need to recognize that AICs do not provide stage-specific treatment options, but only moderate-quality, low-reliability information about the disease, as well as information that is very difficult to read.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558767324001769\",\"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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558767324001769","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

目的在人工智能时代,几乎有一半的患者使用互联网获取有关疾病的信息。我们的研究旨在证明人工智能聊天机器人(AIC)所提供的有关泌尿生殖系统癌症治疗信息的可靠性。结果 DISCERN 分数评估表明,ChatGPT 和 Gemini 提供的信息质量适中,而 Copilot 的质量较低。(DISCERN 总分分别为 41 分、42 分和 35 分)。PEMAT-P 的可理解性得分较低(40%),PEMAT-P 的可操作性得分只有 Gemini 是中等(60%),其他的都较低(40%)。根据 Coleman-Liau 指数,它们的可读性高于大学水平(分别为 16.9、17.2 和 16)。然而,患者需要认识到,AIC 不能提供特定阶段的治疗方案,只能提供中等质量、低可靠性的疾病信息,以及非常难以阅读的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can Patients With Urogenital Cancer Rely on Artificial Intelligence Chatbots for Treatment Decisions?

Objectives

In the era of artificial intelligence, almost half of the patients use the internet to get information about their diseases. Our study aims to demonstrate the reliability of the information provided by artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) about urogenital cancer treatments.

Methods

The most frequently searched keyword about prostate, bladder, kidney, and testicular cancer treatment via Google Trends was asked to 3 different AICs (ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot). The answers were evaluated by 5 different examiners in terms of readability, understandability, actionability, reliability, and transparency.

Results

The DISCERN score evaluation indicates that ChatGPT and Gemini provided moderate quality information, while Copilot's quality was low. (Total DISCERN scores; 41, 42, 35, respectively). PEMAT-P Understandability scores were low (40%) and PEMAT-P Actionability scores were moderate only for Gemini (60%) and low for the others (40%). Their readability according to the Coleman-Liau index was above the college level (16.9, 17.2, 16, respectively).

Conclusions

In the era of artificial intelligence, patients will inevitably use AICs due to their easy and fast accessibility. However, patients need to recognize that AICs do not provide stage-specific treatment options, but only moderate-quality, low-reliability information about the disease, as well as information that is very difficult to read.

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