ChatGPT、谷歌还是PINK?谁提供了早期乳腺癌全身治疗副作用的最可靠信息?

IF 1.7 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Stefan Lukac, Sebastian Griewing, Elena Leinert, Davut Dayan, Benedikt Heitmeir, Markus Wallwiener, Wolfgang Janni, Visnja Fink, Florian Ebner
{"title":"ChatGPT、谷歌还是PINK?谁提供了早期乳腺癌全身治疗副作用的最可靠信息?","authors":"Stefan Lukac, Sebastian Griewing, Elena Leinert, Davut Dayan, Benedikt Heitmeir, Markus Wallwiener, Wolfgang Janni, Visnja Fink, Florian Ebner","doi":"10.3390/clinpract15010008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> The survival in early breast cancer (BC) has been significantly improved thanks to numerous new drugs. Nevertheless, the information about the need for systemic therapy, especially chemotherapy, represents an additional stress factor for patients. A common coping strategy is searching for further information, traditionally via search engines or websites, but artificial intelligence (AI) is also increasingly being used. Who provides the most reliable information is now unclear. <b>Material and Methods</b>: AI in the form of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, Google, and the website of PINK, a provider of a prescription-based mobile health app for patients with BC, were compared to determine the validity of the statements on the five most common side effects of nineteen approved drugs and one drug with pending approval (Ribociclib) for the systemic treatment of BC. For this purpose, the drugs were divided into three groups: chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and endocrine therapy. The reference for the comparison was the prescribing information of the respective drug. A congruence score was calculated for the information on side effects: correct information (2 points), generally appropriate information (1 point), and otherwise no point. The information sources were then compared using a Friedmann test and a Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc test. <b>Results:</b> In the overall comparison, ChatGPT 3.5 received the best score with a congruence of 67.5%, followed by ChatGPT 4.0 with 67.0%, PINK with 59.5%, and with Google 40.0% (<i>p</i> < 0.001). There were also significant differences when comparing the individual subcategories, with the best congruence achieved by PINK (73.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.059) in the chemotherapy category, ChatGPT 4.0 (77.5%; <i>p</i> < 0.001) in the targeted therapy category, and ChatGPT 3.5 (<i>p</i> = 0.002) in the endocrine therapy category. <b>Conclusions:</b> Artificial intelligence and professional online information websites provide the most reliable information on the possible side effects of the systemic treatment of early breast cancer, but congruence with prescribing information is limited. The medical consultation should still be considered the best source of information.</p>","PeriodicalId":45306,"journal":{"name":"Clinics and Practice","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11764162/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT, Google, or PINK? Who Provides the Most Reliable Information on Side Effects of Systemic Therapy for Early Breast Cancer?\",\"authors\":\"Stefan Lukac, Sebastian Griewing, Elena Leinert, Davut Dayan, Benedikt Heitmeir, Markus Wallwiener, Wolfgang Janni, Visnja Fink, Florian Ebner\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/clinpract15010008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> The survival in early breast cancer (BC) has been significantly improved thanks to numerous new drugs. Nevertheless, the information about the need for systemic therapy, especially chemotherapy, represents an additional stress factor for patients. A common coping strategy is searching for further information, traditionally via search engines or websites, but artificial intelligence (AI) is also increasingly being used. Who provides the most reliable information is now unclear. <b>Material and Methods</b>: AI in the form of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, Google, and the website of PINK, a provider of a prescription-based mobile health app for patients with BC, were compared to determine the validity of the statements on the five most common side effects of nineteen approved drugs and one drug with pending approval (Ribociclib) for the systemic treatment of BC. For this purpose, the drugs were divided into three groups: chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and endocrine therapy. The reference for the comparison was the prescribing information of the respective drug. A congruence score was calculated for the information on side effects: correct information (2 points), generally appropriate information (1 point), and otherwise no point. The information sources were then compared using a Friedmann test and a Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc test. <b>Results:</b> In the overall comparison, ChatGPT 3.5 received the best score with a congruence of 67.5%, followed by ChatGPT 4.0 with 67.0%, PINK with 59.5%, and with Google 40.0% (<i>p</i> < 0.001). There were also significant differences when comparing the individual subcategories, with the best congruence achieved by PINK (73.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.059) in the chemotherapy category, ChatGPT 4.0 (77.5%; <i>p</i> < 0.001) in the targeted therapy category, and ChatGPT 3.5 (<i>p</i> = 0.002) in the endocrine therapy category. <b>Conclusions:</b> Artificial intelligence and professional online information websites provide the most reliable information on the possible side effects of the systemic treatment of early breast cancer, but congruence with prescribing information is limited. The medical consultation should still be considered the best source of information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics and Practice\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11764162/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract15010008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract15010008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:由于许多新药的出现,早期乳腺癌(BC)的生存率显著提高。然而,关于需要全身治疗,特别是化疗的信息,对患者来说是一个额外的压力因素。一种常见的应对策略是搜索进一步的信息,传统上是通过搜索引擎或网站,但人工智能(AI)也越来越多地被使用。现在还不清楚谁提供了最可靠的信息。材料和方法:比较ChatGPT 3.5和4.0、谷歌形式的人工智能,以及为BC患者提供基于处方的移动健康应用程序的PINK网站,以确定19种已批准药物和一种正在审批的药物(Ribociclib)用于全身治疗BC的五种最常见副作用声明的有效性。为此,将药物分为三组:化疗、靶向治疗和内分泌治疗。以各自药物的处方信息作为比较参考。计算副作用信息的一致性评分:正确信息(2分),一般适当信息(1分),否则无分。然后使用Friedmann测试和Bonferroni-corrected事后测试对信息源进行比较。结果:在整体比较中,ChatGPT 3.5得分最高,一致性为67.5%,其次是ChatGPT 4.0,一致性为67.0%,PINK为59.5%,谷歌为40.0% (p < 0.001)。不同亚类间的差异也有统计学意义,在化疗分类中,PINK (73.3%, p = 0.059)一致性最好,ChatGPT 4.0 (77.5%;p < 0.001)在靶向治疗类别,ChatGPT 3.5 (p = 0.002)在内分泌治疗类别。结论:人工智能和专业在线信息网站提供了早期乳腺癌系统治疗可能出现的副作用的最可靠信息,但与处方信息的一致性有限。医疗咨询仍应被视为最好的信息来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ChatGPT, Google, or PINK? Who Provides the Most Reliable Information on Side Effects of Systemic Therapy for Early Breast Cancer?

Introduction: The survival in early breast cancer (BC) has been significantly improved thanks to numerous new drugs. Nevertheless, the information about the need for systemic therapy, especially chemotherapy, represents an additional stress factor for patients. A common coping strategy is searching for further information, traditionally via search engines or websites, but artificial intelligence (AI) is also increasingly being used. Who provides the most reliable information is now unclear. Material and Methods: AI in the form of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, Google, and the website of PINK, a provider of a prescription-based mobile health app for patients with BC, were compared to determine the validity of the statements on the five most common side effects of nineteen approved drugs and one drug with pending approval (Ribociclib) for the systemic treatment of BC. For this purpose, the drugs were divided into three groups: chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and endocrine therapy. The reference for the comparison was the prescribing information of the respective drug. A congruence score was calculated for the information on side effects: correct information (2 points), generally appropriate information (1 point), and otherwise no point. The information sources were then compared using a Friedmann test and a Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc test. Results: In the overall comparison, ChatGPT 3.5 received the best score with a congruence of 67.5%, followed by ChatGPT 4.0 with 67.0%, PINK with 59.5%, and with Google 40.0% (p < 0.001). There were also significant differences when comparing the individual subcategories, with the best congruence achieved by PINK (73.3%, p = 0.059) in the chemotherapy category, ChatGPT 4.0 (77.5%; p < 0.001) in the targeted therapy category, and ChatGPT 3.5 (p = 0.002) in the endocrine therapy category. Conclusions: Artificial intelligence and professional online information websites provide the most reliable information on the possible side effects of the systemic treatment of early breast cancer, but congruence with prescribing information is limited. The medical consultation should still be considered the best source of information.

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
Clinics and Practice
Clinics and Practice MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
91
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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