评估聊天机器人制作白内障手术传单的能力:Bing AI、chatGPT 3.5、chatGPT 40、ChatSonic、b谷歌Bard、Perplexity和Pi。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Dr Polly Thompson, Dr Richard Thornton, Mr Conor Ramsden
{"title":"评估聊天机器人制作白内障手术传单的能力:Bing AI、chatGPT 3.5、chatGPT 40、ChatSonic、b谷歌Bard、Perplexity和Pi。","authors":"Dr Polly Thompson, Dr Richard Thornton, Mr Conor Ramsden","doi":"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate leaflets on cataract surgery produced by seven common free chatbots.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Usage of conversational artificial intelligence services (chatbots) is becoming more prevalent in all aspects of life, including healthcare. Cataract surgery is the most commonly performed operation in the world, with numbers set to increase. Possible applications for chatbots include information giving and education, allowing clinicians to allocate their time more efficiently.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Analysis of answers given by seven chatbots (Bing AI, chatGPT 3.5, chatGPT 4o, ChatSonic, Google Bard, Perplexity and Pi) were prompted to \"make a patient information leaflet on cataract surgery\".</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Answers were evaluated using the DISCERN instrument, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), presence of misinformation, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level readability score and material reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The highest overall scored response was from ChatSonic, followed by Bing AI and then Perplexity. The lowest scoring was ChatGPT 3.5.ChatSonic achieved the highest DISCERN and PEMAT scores, and had the highest Flesch-Kincaid Grade level. The lowest DISCERN and PEMAT scores were for Pi. Only ChatGPT 3.5 included some misinformation in its response. Bing AI, ChatSonic and Perplexity included reliable references; the other chatbots provided no references.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates a range of answers given by chatbots creating a cataract surgery leaflet, suggesting variation in their development and reliability. ChatGPT 3.5 scored the most poorly. However, ChatSonic indicated promise in how technology may be used to assist information giving in ophthalmology.</p>","PeriodicalId":15214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing chatbots ability to produce leaflets on cataract surgery: Bing AI, chatGPT 3.5, chatGPT 4o, ChatSonic, Google Bard, Perplexity and Pi.\",\"authors\":\"Dr Polly Thompson, Dr Richard Thornton, Mr Conor Ramsden\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate leaflets on cataract surgery produced by seven common free chatbots.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Usage of conversational artificial intelligence services (chatbots) is becoming more prevalent in all aspects of life, including healthcare. Cataract surgery is the most commonly performed operation in the world, with numbers set to increase. Possible applications for chatbots include information giving and education, allowing clinicians to allocate their time more efficiently.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Analysis of answers given by seven chatbots (Bing AI, chatGPT 3.5, chatGPT 4o, ChatSonic, Google Bard, Perplexity and Pi) were prompted to \\\"make a patient information leaflet on cataract surgery\\\".</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Answers were evaluated using the DISCERN instrument, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), presence of misinformation, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level readability score and material reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The highest overall scored response was from ChatSonic, followed by Bing AI and then Perplexity. The lowest scoring was ChatGPT 3.5.ChatSonic achieved the highest DISCERN and PEMAT scores, and had the highest Flesch-Kincaid Grade level. The lowest DISCERN and PEMAT scores were for Pi. Only ChatGPT 3.5 included some misinformation in its response. Bing AI, ChatSonic and Perplexity included reliable references; the other chatbots provided no references.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates a range of answers given by chatbots creating a cataract surgery leaflet, suggesting variation in their development and reliability. ChatGPT 3.5 scored the most poorly. However, ChatSonic indicated promise in how technology may be used to assist information giving in ophthalmology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001622\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001622","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估七种常见的免费聊天机器人制作的白内障手术宣传单。环境:会话式人工智能服务(聊天机器人)在生活的各个方面变得越来越普遍,包括医疗保健。白内障手术是世界上最常见的手术,而且数量还在增加。聊天机器人可能的应用包括信息传递和教育,让临床医生更有效地分配时间。设计:分析7个聊天机器人(Bing AI、chatGPT 3.5、chatGPT 40、ChatSonic、b谷歌Bard、Perplexity、Pi)给出的答案,提示“制作白内障手术患者信息手册”。方法:采用DISCERN仪器、患者教育材料评估工具(PEMAT)、错误信息的存在、Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level可读性评分和材料信度对答案进行评估。结果:ChatSonic的综合得分最高,其次是Bing AI,然后是Perplexity。最低的得分是ChatGPT 3.5。ChatSonic取得了最高的DISCERN和PEMAT分数,并具有最高的flesch - kinkaid等级。Pi的辨明和PEMAT分数最低。只有ChatGPT 3.5在其响应中包含了一些错误信息。Bing AI、ChatSonic和Perplexity都包含可靠的参考文献;其他聊天机器人没有提供参考。结论:这项研究展示了聊天机器人在制作白内障手术传单时给出的一系列答案,表明它们的发展和可靠性存在差异。ChatGPT 3.5得分最低。然而,ChatSonic在如何使用技术来辅助眼科信息提供方面表现出了希望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing chatbots ability to produce leaflets on cataract surgery: Bing AI, chatGPT 3.5, chatGPT 4o, ChatSonic, Google Bard, Perplexity and Pi.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate leaflets on cataract surgery produced by seven common free chatbots.

Setting: Usage of conversational artificial intelligence services (chatbots) is becoming more prevalent in all aspects of life, including healthcare. Cataract surgery is the most commonly performed operation in the world, with numbers set to increase. Possible applications for chatbots include information giving and education, allowing clinicians to allocate their time more efficiently.

Design: Analysis of answers given by seven chatbots (Bing AI, chatGPT 3.5, chatGPT 4o, ChatSonic, Google Bard, Perplexity and Pi) were prompted to "make a patient information leaflet on cataract surgery".

Methods: Answers were evaluated using the DISCERN instrument, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), presence of misinformation, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level readability score and material reliability.

Results: The highest overall scored response was from ChatSonic, followed by Bing AI and then Perplexity. The lowest scoring was ChatGPT 3.5.ChatSonic achieved the highest DISCERN and PEMAT scores, and had the highest Flesch-Kincaid Grade level. The lowest DISCERN and PEMAT scores were for Pi. Only ChatGPT 3.5 included some misinformation in its response. Bing AI, ChatSonic and Perplexity included reliable references; the other chatbots provided no references.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates a range of answers given by chatbots creating a cataract surgery leaflet, suggesting variation in their development and reliability. ChatGPT 3.5 scored the most poorly. However, ChatSonic indicated promise in how technology may be used to assist information giving in ophthalmology.

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
5.60
自引率
14.30%
发文量
259
审稿时长
8.5 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery (JCRS), a preeminent peer-reviewed monthly ophthalmology publication, is the official journal of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS). JCRS publishes high quality articles on all aspects of anterior segment surgery. In addition to original clinical studies, the journal features a consultation section, practical techniques, important cases, and reviews as well as basic science articles.
×
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