Chase Morrison, Jack Vercnocke, Ana M. Moser, Michael L. Cher, Steven Lucas, John Cochrane, Aron Liaw, Kevin Ginsburg
{"title":"ChatGPT对泌尿科查询的回应是否可读并得到AUA指南的支持?","authors":"Chase Morrison, Jack Vercnocke, Ana M. Moser, Michael L. Cher, Steven Lucas, John Cochrane, Aron Liaw, Kevin Ginsburg","doi":"10.1111/ijun.70023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Are ChatGPT 3.5's responses to patient inquiries about urologic health conditions (1) supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines and (2) readable and accessible to patients? Artificial intelligence technology continues to increase in popularity, but it still must be heavily vetted to ensure safety and accuracy prior to clinical implementation. ChatGPT has varying success when it comes to accurately answering medical questions. We wanted to see if the chatbot's responses to urologic inquiries were conveyed in a patient-friendly manner and supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines. Our results were compared to those of prior studies looking at ChatGPT's performance on the United States Medical Licensing Examination and American Urological Association Self-Assessment Study Programme. ChatGPT's responses to inquiries were compared to guideline statements set forth by the American Urological Association on its website. In this qualitative experiment, 30 prompts were written from a patient's perspective covering multiple urologic domains. The prompts were posed to ChatGPT 3.5 with responses recorded verbatim and graded with a Support Score and Quality Score by eight evaluators consisting of five board-certified urologists and three current urology residents. Readability of the responses was assessed with Flesch–Kincaid Readability Grade Level scores and statistical analysis was performed with Stata version 15.1. 20/30 (66%) of ChatGPT's responses were supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines (median SS of 4, IQR 3–5), although responses to oncology questions were less supported (5/12 supported). 11/30 (37%) of responses were deemed high quality (median QS of 4, IQR 3–5) with responses related to infertility having the highest quality (3/4). The average Flesch–Kincaid Readability Grade Level score across all domains was 18, equivalent to a college graduate reading level. Most responses from ChatGPT 3.5 to urologic inquiries were supported by current American Urological Association guidelines, but the majority were of overall low quality. Responses were at a college graduate reading level, making them inaccessible to most patients. ChatGPT 3.5 has limitations in its ability to answer urologic health questions in a patient-friendly manner, but future versions may improve its utility.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50281,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Urological Nursing","volume":"19 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are ChatGPT's Responses to Urologic Inquiries Readable and Supported by AUA Guidelines?\",\"authors\":\"Chase Morrison, Jack Vercnocke, Ana M. Moser, Michael L. Cher, Steven Lucas, John Cochrane, Aron Liaw, Kevin Ginsburg\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijun.70023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Are ChatGPT 3.5's responses to patient inquiries about urologic health conditions (1) supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines and (2) readable and accessible to patients? Artificial intelligence technology continues to increase in popularity, but it still must be heavily vetted to ensure safety and accuracy prior to clinical implementation. ChatGPT has varying success when it comes to accurately answering medical questions. We wanted to see if the chatbot's responses to urologic inquiries were conveyed in a patient-friendly manner and supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines. Our results were compared to those of prior studies looking at ChatGPT's performance on the United States Medical Licensing Examination and American Urological Association Self-Assessment Study Programme. ChatGPT's responses to inquiries were compared to guideline statements set forth by the American Urological Association on its website. In this qualitative experiment, 30 prompts were written from a patient's perspective covering multiple urologic domains. The prompts were posed to ChatGPT 3.5 with responses recorded verbatim and graded with a Support Score and Quality Score by eight evaluators consisting of five board-certified urologists and three current urology residents. Readability of the responses was assessed with Flesch–Kincaid Readability Grade Level scores and statistical analysis was performed with Stata version 15.1. 20/30 (66%) of ChatGPT's responses were supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines (median SS of 4, IQR 3–5), although responses to oncology questions were less supported (5/12 supported). 11/30 (37%) of responses were deemed high quality (median QS of 4, IQR 3–5) with responses related to infertility having the highest quality (3/4). The average Flesch–Kincaid Readability Grade Level score across all domains was 18, equivalent to a college graduate reading level. Most responses from ChatGPT 3.5 to urologic inquiries were supported by current American Urological Association guidelines, but the majority were of overall low quality. Responses were at a college graduate reading level, making them inaccessible to most patients. ChatGPT 3.5 has limitations in its ability to answer urologic health questions in a patient-friendly manner, but future versions may improve its utility.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Urological Nursing\",\"volume\":\"19 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Urological Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijun.70023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Urological Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijun.70023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Are ChatGPT's Responses to Urologic Inquiries Readable and Supported by AUA Guidelines?
Are ChatGPT 3.5's responses to patient inquiries about urologic health conditions (1) supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines and (2) readable and accessible to patients? Artificial intelligence technology continues to increase in popularity, but it still must be heavily vetted to ensure safety and accuracy prior to clinical implementation. ChatGPT has varying success when it comes to accurately answering medical questions. We wanted to see if the chatbot's responses to urologic inquiries were conveyed in a patient-friendly manner and supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines. Our results were compared to those of prior studies looking at ChatGPT's performance on the United States Medical Licensing Examination and American Urological Association Self-Assessment Study Programme. ChatGPT's responses to inquiries were compared to guideline statements set forth by the American Urological Association on its website. In this qualitative experiment, 30 prompts were written from a patient's perspective covering multiple urologic domains. The prompts were posed to ChatGPT 3.5 with responses recorded verbatim and graded with a Support Score and Quality Score by eight evaluators consisting of five board-certified urologists and three current urology residents. Readability of the responses was assessed with Flesch–Kincaid Readability Grade Level scores and statistical analysis was performed with Stata version 15.1. 20/30 (66%) of ChatGPT's responses were supported by the American Urological Association's guidelines (median SS of 4, IQR 3–5), although responses to oncology questions were less supported (5/12 supported). 11/30 (37%) of responses were deemed high quality (median QS of 4, IQR 3–5) with responses related to infertility having the highest quality (3/4). The average Flesch–Kincaid Readability Grade Level score across all domains was 18, equivalent to a college graduate reading level. Most responses from ChatGPT 3.5 to urologic inquiries were supported by current American Urological Association guidelines, but the majority were of overall low quality. Responses were at a college graduate reading level, making them inaccessible to most patients. ChatGPT 3.5 has limitations in its ability to answer urologic health questions in a patient-friendly manner, but future versions may improve its utility.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Urological Nursing is an international peer-reviewed Journal for all nurses, non-specialist and specialist, who care for individuals with urological disorders. It is relevant for nurses working in a variety of settings: inpatient care, outpatient care, ambulatory care, community care, operating departments and specialist clinics. The Journal covers the whole spectrum of urological nursing skills and knowledge. It supports the publication of local issues of relevance to a wider international community to disseminate good practice.
The International Journal of Urological Nursing is clinically focused, evidence-based and welcomes contributions in the following clinical and non-clinical areas:
-General Urology-
Continence care-
Oncology-
Andrology-
Stoma care-
Paediatric urology-
Men’s health-
Uro-gynaecology-
Reconstructive surgery-
Clinical audit-
Clinical governance-
Nurse-led services-
Reflective analysis-
Education-
Management-
Research-
Leadership
The Journal welcomes original research papers, practice development papers and literature reviews. It also invites shorter papers such as case reports, critical commentary, reflective analysis and reports of audit, as well as contributions to regular sections such as the media reviews section. The International Journal of Urological Nursing supports the development of academic writing within the specialty and particularly welcomes papers from young researchers or practitioners who are seeking to build a publication profile.