gpt - 40和谷歌对运动员睡眠教育建议的评估:比较评估研究。

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lukas Masur, Matthew Driller, Haresh Suppiah, Manuel Matzka, Billy Sperlich, Peter Düking
{"title":"gpt - 40和谷歌对运动员睡眠教育建议的评估:比较评估研究。","authors":"Lukas Masur, Matthew Driller, Haresh Suppiah, Manuel Matzka, Billy Sperlich, Peter Düking","doi":"10.2196/71358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inadequate sleep is prevalent among athletes, affecting adaptation to training and performance. While education on factors influencing sleep can improve sleep behaviors, large language models (LLMs) may offer a scalable approach to provide sleep education to athletes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims (1) to investigate the quality of sleep recommendations generated by publicly available LLMs, as evaluated by experienced raters, and (2) to determine whether evaluation results vary with information input granularity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two prompts with differing information input granularity (low and high) were created for 2 use cases and inserted into ChatGPT-4o (GPT-4o) and Google Gemini, resulting in 8 different recommendations. Experienced raters (n=13) evaluated the recommendations on a 1-5 Likert scale, based on 10 sleep criteria derived from recent literature. A Friedman test with Bonferroni correction was performed to test for significant differences in all rated items between the training plans. Significance level was set to P<.05. Fleiss κ was calculated to assess interrater reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall interrater reliability using Fleiss κ indicated a fair agreement of 0.280 (range between 0.183 and 0.296). The highest summary rating was achieved by GPT-4o using high input information granularity, with 8 ratings >3 (tendency toward good), 3 ratings equal to 3 (neutral), and 2 ratings <3 (tendency toward bad). GPT-4o outperformed Google Gemini in 9 of 10 criteria (P<.001 to P=.04). Recommendations generated with high input granularity received significantly higher ratings than those with low granularity across both LLMs and use cases (P<.001 to P=.049). High input granularity leads to significantly higher ratings in items pertaining to the used scientific sources (P<.001), irrespective of the analyzed LLM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both LLMs exhibit limitations, neglecting vital criteria of sleep education. Sleep recommendations by GPT-4o and Google Gemini were evaluated as suboptimal, with GPT-4o achieving higher overall ratings. However, both LLMs demonstrated improved recommendations with higher information input granularity, emphasizing the need for specificity and a thorough review of outputs to securely implement artificial intelligence technologies into sleep education.</p>","PeriodicalId":14841,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Formative Research","volume":"9 ","pages":"e71358"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Recommendations Provided to Athletes Regarding Sleep Education by GPT-4o and Google Gemini: Comparative Evaluation Study.\",\"authors\":\"Lukas Masur, Matthew Driller, Haresh Suppiah, Manuel Matzka, Billy Sperlich, Peter Düking\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/71358\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inadequate sleep is prevalent among athletes, affecting adaptation to training and performance. While education on factors influencing sleep can improve sleep behaviors, large language models (LLMs) may offer a scalable approach to provide sleep education to athletes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims (1) to investigate the quality of sleep recommendations generated by publicly available LLMs, as evaluated by experienced raters, and (2) to determine whether evaluation results vary with information input granularity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two prompts with differing information input granularity (low and high) were created for 2 use cases and inserted into ChatGPT-4o (GPT-4o) and Google Gemini, resulting in 8 different recommendations. Experienced raters (n=13) evaluated the recommendations on a 1-5 Likert scale, based on 10 sleep criteria derived from recent literature. A Friedman test with Bonferroni correction was performed to test for significant differences in all rated items between the training plans. Significance level was set to P<.05. Fleiss κ was calculated to assess interrater reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall interrater reliability using Fleiss κ indicated a fair agreement of 0.280 (range between 0.183 and 0.296). The highest summary rating was achieved by GPT-4o using high input information granularity, with 8 ratings >3 (tendency toward good), 3 ratings equal to 3 (neutral), and 2 ratings <3 (tendency toward bad). GPT-4o outperformed Google Gemini in 9 of 10 criteria (P<.001 to P=.04). Recommendations generated with high input granularity received significantly higher ratings than those with low granularity across both LLMs and use cases (P<.001 to P=.049). High input granularity leads to significantly higher ratings in items pertaining to the used scientific sources (P<.001), irrespective of the analyzed LLM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both LLMs exhibit limitations, neglecting vital criteria of sleep education. Sleep recommendations by GPT-4o and Google Gemini were evaluated as suboptimal, with GPT-4o achieving higher overall ratings. However, both LLMs demonstrated improved recommendations with higher information input granularity, emphasizing the need for specificity and a thorough review of outputs to securely implement artificial intelligence technologies into sleep education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Formative Research\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"e71358\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Formative Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/71358\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Formative Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/71358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:睡眠不足在运动员中普遍存在,影响对训练和表现的适应。虽然对影响睡眠的因素进行教育可以改善睡眠行为,但大型语言模型(LLMs)可能为运动员提供可扩展的睡眠教育方法。目的:本研究的目的是(1)调查由经验丰富的评分者评估的公开可用的llm生成的睡眠建议的质量,以及(2)确定评估结果是否随信息输入粒度而变化。方法:针对2个用例,创建两个不同信息输入粒度(低、高)的提示符,分别插入chatgpt - 40 (gpt - 40)和谷歌Gemini,得到8条不同的推荐。经验丰富的评分员(n=13)根据最近文献中得出的10项睡眠标准,用1-5李克特量表对建议进行评估。采用Friedman检验和Bonferroni校正来检验训练计划之间所有评定项目的显著性差异。结果:使用Fleiss κ进行的总体判读信度显示公平一致性为0.280(范围在0.183至0.296之间)。gpt - 40使用高输入信息粒度获得了最高的总结评级,其中8个评级为>3(倾向于良好),3个评级等于3(中性),2个评级。结论:两个LLMs都有局限性,忽视了睡眠教育的重要标准。gpt - 40和谷歌Gemini的睡眠建议被评为次优,gpt - 40的总体评分更高。然而,两位法学硕士都展示了更高信息输入粒度的改进建议,强调需要特异性和对输出的彻底审查,以安全地将人工智能技术应用于睡眠教育。
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 Recommendations Provided to Athletes Regarding Sleep Education by GPT-4o and Google Gemini: Comparative Evaluation Study.

Background: Inadequate sleep is prevalent among athletes, affecting adaptation to training and performance. While education on factors influencing sleep can improve sleep behaviors, large language models (LLMs) may offer a scalable approach to provide sleep education to athletes.

Objective: This study aims (1) to investigate the quality of sleep recommendations generated by publicly available LLMs, as evaluated by experienced raters, and (2) to determine whether evaluation results vary with information input granularity.

Methods: Two prompts with differing information input granularity (low and high) were created for 2 use cases and inserted into ChatGPT-4o (GPT-4o) and Google Gemini, resulting in 8 different recommendations. Experienced raters (n=13) evaluated the recommendations on a 1-5 Likert scale, based on 10 sleep criteria derived from recent literature. A Friedman test with Bonferroni correction was performed to test for significant differences in all rated items between the training plans. Significance level was set to P<.05. Fleiss κ was calculated to assess interrater reliability.

Results: The overall interrater reliability using Fleiss κ indicated a fair agreement of 0.280 (range between 0.183 and 0.296). The highest summary rating was achieved by GPT-4o using high input information granularity, with 8 ratings >3 (tendency toward good), 3 ratings equal to 3 (neutral), and 2 ratings <3 (tendency toward bad). GPT-4o outperformed Google Gemini in 9 of 10 criteria (P<.001 to P=.04). Recommendations generated with high input granularity received significantly higher ratings than those with low granularity across both LLMs and use cases (P<.001 to P=.049). High input granularity leads to significantly higher ratings in items pertaining to the used scientific sources (P<.001), irrespective of the analyzed LLM.

Conclusions: Both LLMs exhibit limitations, neglecting vital criteria of sleep education. Sleep recommendations by GPT-4o and Google Gemini were evaluated as suboptimal, with GPT-4o achieving higher overall ratings. However, both LLMs demonstrated improved recommendations with higher information input granularity, emphasizing the need for specificity and a thorough review of outputs to securely implement artificial intelligence technologies into sleep education.

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
JMIR Formative Research
JMIR Formative Research Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
579
审稿时长
12 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