人工智能对尾骨痛常见问题的回应:评估gpt - 40性能的准确性和一致性。

IF 1.1 Q4 RHEUMATOLOGY
Archives of rheumatology Pub Date : 2025-03-17 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.46497/ArchRheumatol.2025.10966
Aslinur Keles, Ozge Gulsum Illeez, Berkay Erbagci, Esra Giray
{"title":"人工智能对尾骨痛常见问题的回应:评估gpt - 40性能的准确性和一致性。","authors":"Aslinur Keles, Ozge Gulsum Illeez, Berkay Erbagci, Esra Giray","doi":"10.46497/ArchRheumatol.2025.10966","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to assess whether GPT-4o's responses to patient-centered frequently asked questions about coccydynia are accurate and consistent when asked at different times and from different accounts.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Questions were collected from medical websites, forums, and patient support groups and posed to GPT-4o. The responses were evaluated by two physiatrists for accuracy and consistency. Responses were categorized: <i>(i)</i> correct and comprehensive, <i>(ii)</i> correct but not inadequate, <i>(iii)</i> partially correct and partially incorrect, and <i>(iv)</i> completely incorrect. Inconsistencies in scoring were resolved by an additional reviewer as needed. Statistical analysis, including Cohen's kappa for interreviewer reliability, was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 81 responses, 45.7% were rated as correct and comprehensive, while 49.4% were correct but incomplete. Only 4.9% of the responses contained partially incorrect information, and no responses were completely incorrect. The interreviewer agreement was substantial (kappa=0.67), but 75% of the responses differed between the two rounds. Notably, 34.9% of initially incomplete answers improved in the second round.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPT-4o shows promise in providing accurate and generally reliable information about coccydynia. However, the variability observed in response consistency across repeated queries suggests that while the model is useful for patient education and general inquiries, it may not be suitable for providing specialized clinical knowledge without human oversight.</p>","PeriodicalId":93884,"journal":{"name":"Archives of rheumatology","volume":"40 1","pages":"63-71"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12010271/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence-generated responses to frequently asked questions on coccydynia: Evaluating the accuracy and consistency of GPT-4o's performance.\",\"authors\":\"Aslinur Keles, Ozge Gulsum Illeez, Berkay Erbagci, Esra Giray\",\"doi\":\"10.46497/ArchRheumatol.2025.10966\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to assess whether GPT-4o's responses to patient-centered frequently asked questions about coccydynia are accurate and consistent when asked at different times and from different accounts.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Questions were collected from medical websites, forums, and patient support groups and posed to GPT-4o. The responses were evaluated by two physiatrists for accuracy and consistency. Responses were categorized: <i>(i)</i> correct and comprehensive, <i>(ii)</i> correct but not inadequate, <i>(iii)</i> partially correct and partially incorrect, and <i>(iv)</i> completely incorrect. Inconsistencies in scoring were resolved by an additional reviewer as needed. Statistical analysis, including Cohen's kappa for interreviewer reliability, was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 81 responses, 45.7% were rated as correct and comprehensive, while 49.4% were correct but incomplete. Only 4.9% of the responses contained partially incorrect information, and no responses were completely incorrect. The interreviewer agreement was substantial (kappa=0.67), but 75% of the responses differed between the two rounds. Notably, 34.9% of initially incomplete answers improved in the second round.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPT-4o shows promise in providing accurate and generally reliable information about coccydynia. However, the variability observed in response consistency across repeated queries suggests that while the model is useful for patient education and general inquiries, it may not be suitable for providing specialized clinical knowledge without human oversight.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93884,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of rheumatology\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"63-71\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12010271/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of rheumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46497/ArchRheumatol.2025.10966\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46497/ArchRheumatol.2025.10966","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估gpt - 40在不同时间和不同说法下对以患者为中心的尾骨痛常见问题的回答是否准确和一致。材料和方法:从医学网站、论坛和患者支持小组收集问题,并向gpt - 40提出问题。由两名物理医师评估回答的准确性和一致性。回答被分类为:(i)正确和全面,(ii)正确但不充分,(iii)部分正确和部分不正确,(iv)完全不正确。评分的不一致由额外的审查员根据需要解决。进行统计分析,包括科恩卡帕量表(Cohen’s kappa)。结果:81份问卷中,正确且全面的占45.7%,正确但不完整的占49.4%。只有4.9%的回答包含部分错误信息,没有回答是完全错误的。采访者的一致意见是实质性的(kappa=0.67),但75%的回答在两轮之间存在差异。值得注意的是,34.9%最初不完整的答案在第二轮中得到了改善。结论:gpt - 40有望提供准确和普遍可靠的尾骨痛信息。然而,在重复查询中观察到的响应一致性的可变性表明,尽管该模型对患者教育和一般查询有用,但它可能不适合在没有人为监督的情况下提供专业的临床知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial intelligence-generated responses to frequently asked questions on coccydynia: Evaluating the accuracy and consistency of GPT-4o's performance.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess whether GPT-4o's responses to patient-centered frequently asked questions about coccydynia are accurate and consistent when asked at different times and from different accounts.

Materials and methods: Questions were collected from medical websites, forums, and patient support groups and posed to GPT-4o. The responses were evaluated by two physiatrists for accuracy and consistency. Responses were categorized: (i) correct and comprehensive, (ii) correct but not inadequate, (iii) partially correct and partially incorrect, and (iv) completely incorrect. Inconsistencies in scoring were resolved by an additional reviewer as needed. Statistical analysis, including Cohen's kappa for interreviewer reliability, was performed.

Results: Of the 81 responses, 45.7% were rated as correct and comprehensive, while 49.4% were correct but incomplete. Only 4.9% of the responses contained partially incorrect information, and no responses were completely incorrect. The interreviewer agreement was substantial (kappa=0.67), but 75% of the responses differed between the two rounds. Notably, 34.9% of initially incomplete answers improved in the second round.

Conclusion: GPT-4o shows promise in providing accurate and generally reliable information about coccydynia. However, the variability observed in response consistency across repeated queries suggests that while the model is useful for patient education and general inquiries, it may not be suitable for providing specialized clinical knowledge without human oversight.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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