{"title":"ChatGPT在回答肺癌及其手术患者问题中的准确性和可靠性:由胸外科医生专家小组评估。","authors":"Onur Akçay, Özgür Öztürk, Tuba Acar, Soner Gürsoy","doi":"10.1007/s13187-025-02682-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, clarity, and scientific adequacy of ChatGPT's responses to frequently asked patient questions concerning lung cancer and its surgical treatment, through an expert panel of thoracic surgeons. A total of 36 frequently asked questions-20 related to lung cancer and 16 related to lung cancer surgery-were collected from various online sources and clinical experience. These questions were submitted to ChatGPT-4.0 in a single session, and the initial responses were assessed by four experienced thoracic surgeons. Each response was scored independently using a 5-point Likert scale for scientific adequacy, clarity, and accuracy. The mean scores, standard deviations, and word counts were calculated. Inter-group comparisons were conducted using independent-samples t-tests. ChatGPT's responses were rated generally high across all domains. For lung cancer questions, the mean scores were 4.50 ± 0.18 (scientific adequacy), 4.57 ± 0.21 (clarity), and 4.66 ± 0.21 (accuracy), with an average word count of 152.4 ± 36.86. For surgical questions, scores were slightly higher: 4.57 ± 0.31, 4.64 ± 0.26, and 4.73 ± 0.21, respectively, with an average word count of 163.68 ± 35.64. Although the differences were not statistically significant, responses to surgical questions were associated with slightly higher agreement scores. Full scores were achieved in three surgical questions. ChatGPT demonstrated a high degree of reliability and clarity in answering commonly asked patient questions about lung cancer and surgery. While the model can serve as a supportive educational tool, it should not replace personalized physician-patient communication, especially in clinical decision-making processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy and Reliability of ChatGPT in Answering Patient Questions About Lung Cancer and Its Surgery: An Expert Panel Evaluation by Thoracic Surgeons.\",\"authors\":\"Onur Akçay, Özgür Öztürk, Tuba Acar, Soner Gürsoy\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13187-025-02682-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, clarity, and scientific adequacy of ChatGPT's responses to frequently asked patient questions concerning lung cancer and its surgical treatment, through an expert panel of thoracic surgeons. A total of 36 frequently asked questions-20 related to lung cancer and 16 related to lung cancer surgery-were collected from various online sources and clinical experience. These questions were submitted to ChatGPT-4.0 in a single session, and the initial responses were assessed by four experienced thoracic surgeons. Each response was scored independently using a 5-point Likert scale for scientific adequacy, clarity, and accuracy. The mean scores, standard deviations, and word counts were calculated. Inter-group comparisons were conducted using independent-samples t-tests. ChatGPT's responses were rated generally high across all domains. For lung cancer questions, the mean scores were 4.50 ± 0.18 (scientific adequacy), 4.57 ± 0.21 (clarity), and 4.66 ± 0.21 (accuracy), with an average word count of 152.4 ± 36.86. For surgical questions, scores were slightly higher: 4.57 ± 0.31, 4.64 ± 0.26, and 4.73 ± 0.21, respectively, with an average word count of 163.68 ± 35.64. Although the differences were not statistically significant, responses to surgical questions were associated with slightly higher agreement scores. Full scores were achieved in three surgical questions. ChatGPT demonstrated a high degree of reliability and clarity in answering commonly asked patient questions about lung cancer and surgery. While the model can serve as a supportive educational tool, it should not replace personalized physician-patient communication, especially in clinical decision-making processes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02682-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02682-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accuracy and Reliability of ChatGPT in Answering Patient Questions About Lung Cancer and Its Surgery: An Expert Panel Evaluation by Thoracic Surgeons.
This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, clarity, and scientific adequacy of ChatGPT's responses to frequently asked patient questions concerning lung cancer and its surgical treatment, through an expert panel of thoracic surgeons. A total of 36 frequently asked questions-20 related to lung cancer and 16 related to lung cancer surgery-were collected from various online sources and clinical experience. These questions were submitted to ChatGPT-4.0 in a single session, and the initial responses were assessed by four experienced thoracic surgeons. Each response was scored independently using a 5-point Likert scale for scientific adequacy, clarity, and accuracy. The mean scores, standard deviations, and word counts were calculated. Inter-group comparisons were conducted using independent-samples t-tests. ChatGPT's responses were rated generally high across all domains. For lung cancer questions, the mean scores were 4.50 ± 0.18 (scientific adequacy), 4.57 ± 0.21 (clarity), and 4.66 ± 0.21 (accuracy), with an average word count of 152.4 ± 36.86. For surgical questions, scores were slightly higher: 4.57 ± 0.31, 4.64 ± 0.26, and 4.73 ± 0.21, respectively, with an average word count of 163.68 ± 35.64. Although the differences were not statistically significant, responses to surgical questions were associated with slightly higher agreement scores. Full scores were achieved in three surgical questions. ChatGPT demonstrated a high degree of reliability and clarity in answering commonly asked patient questions about lung cancer and surgery. While the model can serve as a supportive educational tool, it should not replace personalized physician-patient communication, especially in clinical decision-making processes.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues.
Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care.
We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts.
Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited.
Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants.
Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.