ChatGPT 3.5 和 4 在回答患者有关股骨髋臼撞击综合征和髋关节镜手术的问题时提供了基本准确的信息。

IF 2.7 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
David Slawaska-Eng, Yoan Bourgeault-Gagnon, Dan Cohen, Thierry Pauyo, Etienne L Belzile, Olufemi R Ayeni
{"title":"ChatGPT 3.5 和 4 在回答患者有关股骨髋臼撞击综合征和髋关节镜手术的问题时提供了基本准确的信息。","authors":"David Slawaska-Eng, Yoan Bourgeault-Gagnon, Dan Cohen, Thierry Pauyo, Etienne L Belzile, Olufemi R Ayeni","doi":"10.1016/j.jisako.2024.100376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT in answering patient questions about femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and arthroscopic hip surgery, comparing the performance of versions ChatGPT-3.5 (free) and ChatGPT-4 (paid).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve frequently asked questions (FAQs) relating to FAI were selected and posed to ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4. Responses were assessed for accuracy by three hip arthroscopy surgeons using a four-tier grading system. Statistical analyses included Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Gwet's AC2 coefficient for interrater agreement corrected for chance and employing quadratic weights.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median ratings for responses ranged from \"excellent not requiring clarification\" to \"satisfactory requiring moderate clarification.\" No responses were rated as \"unsatisfactory requiring substantial clarification.\" Median accuracy scores were 2 (range 1-3) for ChatGPT-3.5 and 1.5 (range 1-3) for ChatGPT-4, with 25% of ChatGPT-3.5's responses and 50% of ChatGPT-4's responses rated as \"excellent.\" There was no statistical difference in performance between the two versions (p = 0.279) although ChatGPT-4 showed a tendency towards higher accuracy in some areas. Interrater agreement was substantial for ChatGPT-3.5 (Gwet's AC2 = 0.79 [95%CI = 0.6 - 0.94]) and moderate to substantial for ChatGPT-4 (Gwet's AC2 = 0.65 [95%CI = 0.43 - 0.87]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both versions of ChatGPT provided mostly accurate responses to FAQs on FAI and arthroscopic surgery, with no significant difference between the versions. The findings suggest potential utility of ChatGPT in patient education, though cautious implementation and further evaluation are recommended due to variability in response accuracy and low power of the study.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":36847,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"100376"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 Provide Mostly Accurate Information When Answering Patients' Questions Relating to Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome and Arthroscopic Hip Surgery.\",\"authors\":\"David Slawaska-Eng, Yoan Bourgeault-Gagnon, Dan Cohen, Thierry Pauyo, Etienne L Belzile, Olufemi R Ayeni\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jisako.2024.100376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT in answering patient questions about femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and arthroscopic hip surgery, comparing the performance of versions ChatGPT-3.5 (free) and ChatGPT-4 (paid).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve frequently asked questions (FAQs) relating to FAI were selected and posed to ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4. Responses were assessed for accuracy by three hip arthroscopy surgeons using a four-tier grading system. Statistical analyses included Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Gwet's AC2 coefficient for interrater agreement corrected for chance and employing quadratic weights.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median ratings for responses ranged from \\\"excellent not requiring clarification\\\" to \\\"satisfactory requiring moderate clarification.\\\" No responses were rated as \\\"unsatisfactory requiring substantial clarification.\\\" Median accuracy scores were 2 (range 1-3) for ChatGPT-3.5 and 1.5 (range 1-3) for ChatGPT-4, with 25% of ChatGPT-3.5's responses and 50% of ChatGPT-4's responses rated as \\\"excellent.\\\" There was no statistical difference in performance between the two versions (p = 0.279) although ChatGPT-4 showed a tendency towards higher accuracy in some areas. Interrater agreement was substantial for ChatGPT-3.5 (Gwet's AC2 = 0.79 [95%CI = 0.6 - 0.94]) and moderate to substantial for ChatGPT-4 (Gwet's AC2 = 0.65 [95%CI = 0.43 - 0.87]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both versions of ChatGPT provided mostly accurate responses to FAQs on FAI and arthroscopic surgery, with no significant difference between the versions. The findings suggest potential utility of ChatGPT in patient education, though cautious implementation and further evaluation are recommended due to variability in response accuracy and low power of the study.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>IV.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"100376\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisako.2024.100376\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisako.2024.100376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 Provide Mostly Accurate Information When Answering Patients' Questions Relating to Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome and Arthroscopic Hip Surgery.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT in answering patient questions about femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and arthroscopic hip surgery, comparing the performance of versions ChatGPT-3.5 (free) and ChatGPT-4 (paid).

Methods: Twelve frequently asked questions (FAQs) relating to FAI were selected and posed to ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4. Responses were assessed for accuracy by three hip arthroscopy surgeons using a four-tier grading system. Statistical analyses included Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Gwet's AC2 coefficient for interrater agreement corrected for chance and employing quadratic weights.

Results: Median ratings for responses ranged from "excellent not requiring clarification" to "satisfactory requiring moderate clarification." No responses were rated as "unsatisfactory requiring substantial clarification." Median accuracy scores were 2 (range 1-3) for ChatGPT-3.5 and 1.5 (range 1-3) for ChatGPT-4, with 25% of ChatGPT-3.5's responses and 50% of ChatGPT-4's responses rated as "excellent." There was no statistical difference in performance between the two versions (p = 0.279) although ChatGPT-4 showed a tendency towards higher accuracy in some areas. Interrater agreement was substantial for ChatGPT-3.5 (Gwet's AC2 = 0.79 [95%CI = 0.6 - 0.94]) and moderate to substantial for ChatGPT-4 (Gwet's AC2 = 0.65 [95%CI = 0.43 - 0.87]).

Conclusion: Both versions of ChatGPT provided mostly accurate responses to FAQs on FAI and arthroscopic surgery, with no significant difference between the versions. The findings suggest potential utility of ChatGPT in patient education, though cautious implementation and further evaluation are recommended due to variability in response accuracy and low power of the study.

Level of evidence: IV.

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
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
61
审稿时长
108 days
×
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