人工智能与眼科专家:对睑炎患者查询的反应的比较分析。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Daniel Bahir, Audrey Rostov, Yumna Busool Abu Eta, Shirin Hamed Azzam, David Lockington, Joshua C Teichman, Artemis Matsou, Clara C Chan, Elad Shvartz, Michael Mimouni
{"title":"人工智能与眼科专家:对睑炎患者查询的反应的比较分析。","authors":"Daniel Bahir, Audrey Rostov, Yumna Busool Abu Eta, Shirin Hamed Azzam, David Lockington, Joshua C Teichman, Artemis Matsou, Clara C Chan, Elad Shvartz, Michael Mimouni","doi":"10.1177/11206721251350809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy and clinical education value of responses from AI models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Gemini, Gemini Advanced) compared to expert ophthalmologists' answers to common patient questions about blepharitis, and evaluate their potential for patient education and clinical use.MethodsThirteen frequently asked questions about blepharitis were selected. Responses were generated by AI models and compared to expert answers. A panel of ophthalmologists rated each response for correctness and clinical education value using a 7-point Likert scale. The Friedman test with post hoc comparisons was used to identify performance differences.ResultsExpert responses had the highest correctness (6.3) and clinical education value (6.4) scores, especially in complex, context-driven questions. Significant differences were found between expert and AI responses (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Among AI models, GPT-3.5 performed best in simple definitions (correctness: 6.4) but dropped to 5.5 in nuanced cases. GPT-4o followed (5.4), while Gemini and Gemini Advanced scored lower (5.0 and 4.9), especially in diagnostic and treatment contexts.ConclusionsAI models can support patient education by effectively answering basic factual questions about blepharitis. However, their limitations in complex clinical scenarios highlight the continued need for expert input. While promising as educational tools, AI should complement-not replace-clinician guidance in patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":12000,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"11206721251350809"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence versus ophthalmology experts: Comparative analysis of responses to blepharitis patient queries.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Bahir, Audrey Rostov, Yumna Busool Abu Eta, Shirin Hamed Azzam, David Lockington, Joshua C Teichman, Artemis Matsou, Clara C Chan, Elad Shvartz, Michael Mimouni\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11206721251350809\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy and clinical education value of responses from AI models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Gemini, Gemini Advanced) compared to expert ophthalmologists' answers to common patient questions about blepharitis, and evaluate their potential for patient education and clinical use.MethodsThirteen frequently asked questions about blepharitis were selected. Responses were generated by AI models and compared to expert answers. A panel of ophthalmologists rated each response for correctness and clinical education value using a 7-point Likert scale. The Friedman test with post hoc comparisons was used to identify performance differences.ResultsExpert responses had the highest correctness (6.3) and clinical education value (6.4) scores, especially in complex, context-driven questions. Significant differences were found between expert and AI responses (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Among AI models, GPT-3.5 performed best in simple definitions (correctness: 6.4) but dropped to 5.5 in nuanced cases. GPT-4o followed (5.4), while Gemini and Gemini Advanced scored lower (5.0 and 4.9), especially in diagnostic and treatment contexts.ConclusionsAI models can support patient education by effectively answering basic factual questions about blepharitis. However, their limitations in complex clinical scenarios highlight the continued need for expert input. While promising as educational tools, AI should complement-not replace-clinician guidance in patient care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"11206721251350809\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721251350809\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721251350809","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较人工智能模型(GPT-3.5、gpt - 40、Gemini、Gemini Advanced)与眼科专家对患者常见睑炎问题的回答的准确性和临床教育价值,并评价其对患者的教育和临床应用潜力。方法选取13例睑缘炎常见问题。答案由人工智能模型生成,并与专家答案进行比较。一组眼科医生使用7分李克特量表对每个回答的正确性和临床教育价值进行评分。采用事后比较的弗里德曼检验来确定性能差异。结果专家回答的正确性(6.3分)和临床教育价值(6.4分)得分最高,特别是在复杂的、情境驱动的问题中。专家和人工智能的反应之间存在显著差异(P
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 versus ophthalmology experts: Comparative analysis of responses to blepharitis patient queries.

ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy and clinical education value of responses from AI models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Gemini, Gemini Advanced) compared to expert ophthalmologists' answers to common patient questions about blepharitis, and evaluate their potential for patient education and clinical use.MethodsThirteen frequently asked questions about blepharitis were selected. Responses were generated by AI models and compared to expert answers. A panel of ophthalmologists rated each response for correctness and clinical education value using a 7-point Likert scale. The Friedman test with post hoc comparisons was used to identify performance differences.ResultsExpert responses had the highest correctness (6.3) and clinical education value (6.4) scores, especially in complex, context-driven questions. Significant differences were found between expert and AI responses (P < 0.05). Among AI models, GPT-3.5 performed best in simple definitions (correctness: 6.4) but dropped to 5.5 in nuanced cases. GPT-4o followed (5.4), while Gemini and Gemini Advanced scored lower (5.0 and 4.9), especially in diagnostic and treatment contexts.ConclusionsAI models can support patient education by effectively answering basic factual questions about blepharitis. However, their limitations in complex clinical scenarios highlight the continued need for expert input. While promising as educational tools, AI should complement-not replace-clinician guidance in patient care.

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
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
372
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Ophthalmology was founded in 1991 and is issued in print bi-monthly. It publishes only peer-reviewed original research reporting clinical observations and laboratory investigations with clinical relevance focusing on new diagnostic and surgical techniques, instrument and therapy updates, results of clinical trials and research findings.
×
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