大语言模型在牙周功能缺损治疗临床问题回答中的表现评价。

IF 2.5 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Georgios S Chatzopoulos, Vasiliki P Koidou, Lazaros Tsalikis, Eleftherios G Kaklamanos
{"title":"大语言模型在牙周功能缺损治疗临床问题回答中的表现评价。","authors":"Georgios S Chatzopoulos, Vasiliki P Koidou, Lazaros Tsalikis, Eleftherios G Kaklamanos","doi":"10.3390/dj13060271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Large Language Models (LLMs) are artificial intelligence (AI) systems with the capacity to process vast amounts of text and generate human-like language, offering the potential for improved information retrieval in healthcare. This study aimed to assess and compare the evidence-based potential of answers provided by four LLMs to common clinical questions concerning the management and treatment of periodontal furcation defects. <b>Methods</b>: Four LLMs-ChatGPT 4.0, Google Gemini, Google Gemini Advanced, and Microsoft Copilot-were used to answer ten clinical questions related to periodontal furcation defects. The LLM-generated responses were compared against a \"gold standard\" derived from the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) S3 guidelines and recent systematic reviews. Two board-certified periodontists independently evaluated the answers for comprehensiveness, scientific accuracy, clarity, and relevance using a predefined rubric and a scoring system of 0-10. <b>Results</b>: The study found variability in LLM performance across the evaluation criteria. Google Gemini Advanced generally achieved the highest average scores, particularly in comprehensiveness and clarity, while Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot tended to score lower, especially in relevance. However, the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no statistically significant differences in the overall average scores among the LLMs. Evaluator agreement and intra-evaluator reliability were high. <b>Conclusions</b>: While LLMs demonstrate the potential to answer clinical questions related to furcation defect management, their performance varies. LLMs showed different comprehensiveness, scientific accuracy, clarity, and relevance degrees. Dental professionals should be aware of LLMs' capabilities and limitations when seeking clinical information.</p>","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":"13 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12191798/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Large Language Model Performance in Answering Clinical Questions on Periodontal Furcation Defect Management.\",\"authors\":\"Georgios S Chatzopoulos, Vasiliki P Koidou, Lazaros Tsalikis, Eleftherios G Kaklamanos\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/dj13060271\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Large Language Models (LLMs) are artificial intelligence (AI) systems with the capacity to process vast amounts of text and generate human-like language, offering the potential for improved information retrieval in healthcare. This study aimed to assess and compare the evidence-based potential of answers provided by four LLMs to common clinical questions concerning the management and treatment of periodontal furcation defects. <b>Methods</b>: Four LLMs-ChatGPT 4.0, Google Gemini, Google Gemini Advanced, and Microsoft Copilot-were used to answer ten clinical questions related to periodontal furcation defects. The LLM-generated responses were compared against a \\\"gold standard\\\" derived from the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) S3 guidelines and recent systematic reviews. Two board-certified periodontists independently evaluated the answers for comprehensiveness, scientific accuracy, clarity, and relevance using a predefined rubric and a scoring system of 0-10. <b>Results</b>: The study found variability in LLM performance across the evaluation criteria. Google Gemini Advanced generally achieved the highest average scores, particularly in comprehensiveness and clarity, while Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot tended to score lower, especially in relevance. However, the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no statistically significant differences in the overall average scores among the LLMs. Evaluator agreement and intra-evaluator reliability were high. <b>Conclusions</b>: While LLMs demonstrate the potential to answer clinical questions related to furcation defect management, their performance varies. LLMs showed different comprehensiveness, scientific accuracy, clarity, and relevance degrees. Dental professionals should be aware of LLMs' capabilities and limitations when seeking clinical information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dentistry Journal\",\"volume\":\"13 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12191798/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dentistry Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13060271\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13060271","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目标:大型语言模型(llm)是一种人工智能(AI)系统,能够处理大量文本并生成类似人类的语言,为改善医疗保健领域的信息检索提供了潜力。本研究旨在评估和比较四位法学硕士提供的关于牙周功能缺损管理和治疗的常见临床问题的循证答案的潜力。方法:采用chatgpt 4.0、谷歌Gemini、谷歌Gemini Advanced、Microsoft copilot四款llms软件,对牙周功能缺损的十个临床问题进行分析。法学硕士产生的反应与来自欧洲牙周病联合会(EFP) S3指南和最近的系统评价的“金标准”进行了比较。两名委员会认证的牙周病专家独立评估答案的全面性、科学性、准确性、清晰度和相关性,使用预定义的标题和0-10的评分系统。结果:研究发现LLM绩效在评估标准上存在差异。谷歌Gemini Advanced的平均得分普遍最高,尤其是在综合性和清晰度方面,而谷歌Gemini和Microsoft Copilot的得分往往较低,尤其是在相关性方面。然而,Kruskal-Wallis测试显示llm的总体平均得分没有统计学上的显著差异。评价者一致性和评价者内部信度较高。结论:虽然llm展示了回答与功能缺陷管理相关的临床问题的潜力,但它们的表现各不相同。法学硕士的全面性、科学性、准确性、清晰度和相关性存在差异。牙科专业人员应该意识到llm的能力和局限性时,寻求临床信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of Large Language Model Performance in Answering Clinical Questions on Periodontal Furcation Defect Management.

Background/Objectives: Large Language Models (LLMs) are artificial intelligence (AI) systems with the capacity to process vast amounts of text and generate human-like language, offering the potential for improved information retrieval in healthcare. This study aimed to assess and compare the evidence-based potential of answers provided by four LLMs to common clinical questions concerning the management and treatment of periodontal furcation defects. Methods: Four LLMs-ChatGPT 4.0, Google Gemini, Google Gemini Advanced, and Microsoft Copilot-were used to answer ten clinical questions related to periodontal furcation defects. The LLM-generated responses were compared against a "gold standard" derived from the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) S3 guidelines and recent systematic reviews. Two board-certified periodontists independently evaluated the answers for comprehensiveness, scientific accuracy, clarity, and relevance using a predefined rubric and a scoring system of 0-10. Results: The study found variability in LLM performance across the evaluation criteria. Google Gemini Advanced generally achieved the highest average scores, particularly in comprehensiveness and clarity, while Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot tended to score lower, especially in relevance. However, the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no statistically significant differences in the overall average scores among the LLMs. Evaluator agreement and intra-evaluator reliability were high. Conclusions: While LLMs demonstrate the potential to answer clinical questions related to furcation defect management, their performance varies. LLMs showed different comprehensiveness, scientific accuracy, clarity, and relevance degrees. Dental professionals should be aware of LLMs' capabilities and limitations when seeking clinical 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
Dentistry Journal
Dentistry Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
213
审稿时长
11 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信