人工智能在回答肉毒杆菌毒素和骶神经调节问题中的表现评估。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Ibrahim Hacibey, Ahmet Halis
{"title":"人工智能在回答肉毒杆菌毒素和骶神经调节问题中的表现评估。","authors":"Ibrahim Hacibey, Ahmet Halis","doi":"10.4111/icu.20250040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the performance of three artificial intelligence (AI) models-ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot-in addressing clinically relevant questions about onabotulinum toxin and sacral neuromodulation (SNM) for the management of overactive bladder (OAB).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A set of 30 questions covering mechanisms of action, indications, contraindications, procedural details, efficacy, and safety profiles was posed to each AI model. Responses were assessed by a panel of four urology specialists using predefined criteria: accuracy, completeness, clarity, and consistency. A multi-dimensional scoring framework evaluated the performance across five dimensions: factual accuracy, relevance, clarity/coherence, structure, and utility. Responses were scored on a 4-point Likert scale, and statistical analyses were conducted using one-way ANOVA to compare model performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT achieved the highest mean score (3.98/4) across all dimensions, with statistically significant differences compared to Gemini (3.20/4) and Copilot (2.60/4) (p=0.001 for all dimensions). ChatGPT excelled particularly in clinical application, procedure, and safety categories, consistently delivering accurate and comprehensive answers. No statistically significant differences were found between Gemini and Copilot in most categories.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT demonstrated superior performance in generating accurate, complete, and clinically relevant responses for OAB management, highlighting its potential as a reliable tool for both healthcare professionals and patients. However, the variability observed in Gemini and Copilot underscores the need for further refinement of these models. Future studies should explore real-world integration of AI models into clinical workflows to enhance patient care and decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":14522,"journal":{"name":"Investigative and Clinical Urology","volume":"66 3","pages":"188-193"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12058535/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of artificial intelligence performance in answering questions on onabotulinum toxin and sacral neuromodulation.\",\"authors\":\"Ibrahim Hacibey, Ahmet Halis\",\"doi\":\"10.4111/icu.20250040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the performance of three artificial intelligence (AI) models-ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot-in addressing clinically relevant questions about onabotulinum toxin and sacral neuromodulation (SNM) for the management of overactive bladder (OAB).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A set of 30 questions covering mechanisms of action, indications, contraindications, procedural details, efficacy, and safety profiles was posed to each AI model. Responses were assessed by a panel of four urology specialists using predefined criteria: accuracy, completeness, clarity, and consistency. A multi-dimensional scoring framework evaluated the performance across five dimensions: factual accuracy, relevance, clarity/coherence, structure, and utility. Responses were scored on a 4-point Likert scale, and statistical analyses were conducted using one-way ANOVA to compare model performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT achieved the highest mean score (3.98/4) across all dimensions, with statistically significant differences compared to Gemini (3.20/4) and Copilot (2.60/4) (p=0.001 for all dimensions). ChatGPT excelled particularly in clinical application, procedure, and safety categories, consistently delivering accurate and comprehensive answers. No statistically significant differences were found between Gemini and Copilot in most categories.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT demonstrated superior performance in generating accurate, complete, and clinically relevant responses for OAB management, highlighting its potential as a reliable tool for both healthcare professionals and patients. However, the variability observed in Gemini and Copilot underscores the need for further refinement of these models. Future studies should explore real-world integration of AI models into clinical workflows to enhance patient care and decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Investigative and Clinical Urology\",\"volume\":\"66 3\",\"pages\":\"188-193\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12058535/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Investigative and Clinical Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20250040\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Investigative and Clinical Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20250040","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估chatgpt、Gemini和copilot三种人工智能(AI)模型在解决肉毒杆菌毒素和骶神经调节(SNM)治疗膀胱过动症(OAB)的临床相关问题中的表现。材料和方法:对每个人工智能模型提出30个问题,包括作用机制、适应症、禁忌症、程序细节、疗效和安全性概况。由四名泌尿科专家组成的小组使用预先确定的标准对反馈进行评估:准确性、完整性、清晰度和一致性。多维评分框架从五个方面评估表现:事实准确性、相关性、清晰度/连贯性、结构和实用性。采用4点李克特量表对应答进行评分,采用单因素方差分析进行统计分析,比较模型的性能。结果:ChatGPT在各维度的平均得分最高(3.98/4),与Gemini(3.20/4)和Copilot(2.60/4)相比差异有统计学意义(p=0.001)。ChatGPT在临床应用、程序和安全性方面表现突出,始终如一地提供准确而全面的答案。在大多数类别中,双子星和副驾驶之间没有统计学上的显著差异。结论:ChatGPT在为OAB管理生成准确、完整和临床相关的响应方面表现出卓越的性能,突出了其作为医疗保健专业人员和患者的可靠工具的潜力。然而,在双子座和副驾驶中观察到的可变性强调了这些模型进一步完善的必要性。未来的研究应探索将人工智能模型整合到临床工作流程中,以增强患者护理和决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of artificial intelligence performance in answering questions on onabotulinum toxin and sacral neuromodulation.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of three artificial intelligence (AI) models-ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot-in addressing clinically relevant questions about onabotulinum toxin and sacral neuromodulation (SNM) for the management of overactive bladder (OAB).

Materials and methods: A set of 30 questions covering mechanisms of action, indications, contraindications, procedural details, efficacy, and safety profiles was posed to each AI model. Responses were assessed by a panel of four urology specialists using predefined criteria: accuracy, completeness, clarity, and consistency. A multi-dimensional scoring framework evaluated the performance across five dimensions: factual accuracy, relevance, clarity/coherence, structure, and utility. Responses were scored on a 4-point Likert scale, and statistical analyses were conducted using one-way ANOVA to compare model performance.

Results: ChatGPT achieved the highest mean score (3.98/4) across all dimensions, with statistically significant differences compared to Gemini (3.20/4) and Copilot (2.60/4) (p=0.001 for all dimensions). ChatGPT excelled particularly in clinical application, procedure, and safety categories, consistently delivering accurate and comprehensive answers. No statistically significant differences were found between Gemini and Copilot in most categories.

Conclusions: ChatGPT demonstrated superior performance in generating accurate, complete, and clinically relevant responses for OAB management, highlighting its potential as a reliable tool for both healthcare professionals and patients. However, the variability observed in Gemini and Copilot underscores the need for further refinement of these models. Future studies should explore real-world integration of AI models into clinical workflows to enhance patient care and decision-making.

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
4.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
82
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊介绍: Investigative and Clinical Urology (Investig Clin Urol, ICUrology) is an international, peer-reviewed, platinum open access journal published bimonthly. ICUrology aims to provide outstanding scientific and clinical research articles, that will advance knowledge and understanding of urological diseases and current therapeutic treatments. ICUrology publishes Original Articles, Rapid Communications, Review Articles, Special Articles, Innovations in Urology, Editorials, and Letters to the Editor, with a focus on the following areas of expertise: • Precision Medicine in Urology • Urological Oncology • Robotics/Laparoscopy • Endourology/Urolithiasis • Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction • Female Urology • Sexual Dysfunction/Infertility • Infection/Inflammation • Reconstruction/Transplantation • Geriatric Urology • Pediatric Urology • Basic/Translational Research One of the notable features of ICUrology is the application of multimedia platforms facilitating easy-to-access online video clips of newly developed surgical techniques from the journal''s website, by a QR (quick response) code located in the article, or via YouTube. ICUrology provides current and highly relevant knowledge to a broad audience at the cutting edge of urological research and clinical practice.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信