ChatGPT和Microsoft Copilot用于人工耳蜗侧边选择的初步研究。

IF 1.8 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Daniele Portelli, Sabrina Loteta, Mariangela D'Angelo, Cosimo Galletti, Leonard Freni, Rocco Bruno, Francesco Ciodaro, Angela Alibrandi, Giuseppe Alberti
{"title":"ChatGPT和Microsoft Copilot用于人工耳蜗侧边选择的初步研究。","authors":"Daniele Portelli, Sabrina Loteta, Mariangela D'Angelo, Cosimo Galletti, Leonard Freni, Rocco Bruno, Francesco Ciodaro, Angela Alibrandi, Giuseppe Alberti","doi":"10.3390/audiolres15040100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being applied in otolaryngology, including cochlear implants (CIs). This study evaluates the accuracy and completeness of ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Copilot in determining the appropriate implantation side based on audiological and radiological data, as well as the presence of tinnitus. <b>Methods</b>: Data from 22 CI patients (11 males, 11 females; 12 right-sided, 10 left-sided implants) were used to query both AI models. Each patient's audiometric thresholds, hearing aid benefit, tinnitus presence, and radiological findings were provided. The AI-generated responses were compared to the clinician-chosen sides. Accuracy and completeness were scored by two independent reviewers. <b>Results</b>: ChatGPT had a 50% concordance rate for right-side implantation and a 70% concordance rate for left-side implantation, while Microsoft Copilot achieved 75% and 90%, respectively. Chi-square tests showed significant associations between AI-suggested and clinician-chosen sides for both AI (<i>p</i> < 0.05). ChatGPT outperformed Microsoft Copilot in identifying radiological alterations (60% vs. 40%) and tinnitus presence (77.8% vs. 66.7%). Cronbach's alpha was >0.70 only for ChatGPT accuracy, indicating better agreement between reviewers. <b>Conclusions</b>: Both AI models showed significant alignment with clinician decisions. Microsoft Copilot was more accurate in implantation side selection, while ChatGPT better recognized radiological alterations and tinnitus. These results highlight AI's potential as a clinical decision support tool in CI candidacy, although further research is needed to refine its application in complex cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":44133,"journal":{"name":"Audiology Research","volume":"15 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12383040/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot for Cochlear Implant Side Selection: A Preliminary Study.\",\"authors\":\"Daniele Portelli, Sabrina Loteta, Mariangela D'Angelo, Cosimo Galletti, Leonard Freni, Rocco Bruno, Francesco Ciodaro, Angela Alibrandi, Giuseppe Alberti\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/audiolres15040100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being applied in otolaryngology, including cochlear implants (CIs). This study evaluates the accuracy and completeness of ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Copilot in determining the appropriate implantation side based on audiological and radiological data, as well as the presence of tinnitus. <b>Methods</b>: Data from 22 CI patients (11 males, 11 females; 12 right-sided, 10 left-sided implants) were used to query both AI models. Each patient's audiometric thresholds, hearing aid benefit, tinnitus presence, and radiological findings were provided. The AI-generated responses were compared to the clinician-chosen sides. Accuracy and completeness were scored by two independent reviewers. <b>Results</b>: ChatGPT had a 50% concordance rate for right-side implantation and a 70% concordance rate for left-side implantation, while Microsoft Copilot achieved 75% and 90%, respectively. Chi-square tests showed significant associations between AI-suggested and clinician-chosen sides for both AI (<i>p</i> < 0.05). ChatGPT outperformed Microsoft Copilot in identifying radiological alterations (60% vs. 40%) and tinnitus presence (77.8% vs. 66.7%). Cronbach's alpha was >0.70 only for ChatGPT accuracy, indicating better agreement between reviewers. <b>Conclusions</b>: Both AI models showed significant alignment with clinician decisions. Microsoft Copilot was more accurate in implantation side selection, while ChatGPT better recognized radiological alterations and tinnitus. These results highlight AI's potential as a clinical decision support tool in CI candidacy, although further research is needed to refine its application in complex cases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44133,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Audiology Research\",\"volume\":\"15 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12383040/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Audiology Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres15040100\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Audiology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres15040100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:人工智能(AI)在耳鼻喉科的应用越来越广泛,包括人工耳蜗(CIs)。本研究评估ChatGPT-4和Microsoft Copilot根据听力学和放射学数据以及耳鸣的存在来确定合适的植入侧位的准确性和完整性。方法:使用22例CI患者(男性11例,女性11例;右侧种植体12例,左侧种植体10例)的数据查询两种AI模型。提供每位患者的听力阈值、助听器的益处、耳鸣的存在和放射学结果。将人工智能生成的回答与临床医生选择的一方进行比较。准确性和完整性由两名独立评论者评分。结果:ChatGPT右侧植入的符合率为50%,左侧植入的符合率为70%,Microsoft Copilot的符合率分别为75%和90%。卡方检验显示,人工智能建议侧与临床选择侧之间存在显著相关性(p < 0.05)。ChatGPT在识别放射学改变(60%比40%)和耳鸣(77.8%比66.7%)方面优于Microsoft Copilot。仅ChatGPT准确度的Cronbach’s alpha为bb0.70,表明审稿人之间的一致性更好。结论:两种人工智能模型都与临床医生的决定有显著的一致性。Microsoft Copilot对植入侧位的选择更准确,ChatGPT对放射学改变和耳鸣的识别更好。这些结果突出了人工智能作为CI候选临床决策支持工具的潜力,尽管需要进一步研究以完善其在复杂病例中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot for Cochlear Implant Side Selection: A Preliminary Study.

ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot for Cochlear Implant Side Selection: A Preliminary Study.

Background/Objectives: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being applied in otolaryngology, including cochlear implants (CIs). This study evaluates the accuracy and completeness of ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Copilot in determining the appropriate implantation side based on audiological and radiological data, as well as the presence of tinnitus. Methods: Data from 22 CI patients (11 males, 11 females; 12 right-sided, 10 left-sided implants) were used to query both AI models. Each patient's audiometric thresholds, hearing aid benefit, tinnitus presence, and radiological findings were provided. The AI-generated responses were compared to the clinician-chosen sides. Accuracy and completeness were scored by two independent reviewers. Results: ChatGPT had a 50% concordance rate for right-side implantation and a 70% concordance rate for left-side implantation, while Microsoft Copilot achieved 75% and 90%, respectively. Chi-square tests showed significant associations between AI-suggested and clinician-chosen sides for both AI (p < 0.05). ChatGPT outperformed Microsoft Copilot in identifying radiological alterations (60% vs. 40%) and tinnitus presence (77.8% vs. 66.7%). Cronbach's alpha was >0.70 only for ChatGPT accuracy, indicating better agreement between reviewers. Conclusions: Both AI models showed significant alignment with clinician decisions. Microsoft Copilot was more accurate in implantation side selection, while ChatGPT better recognized radiological alterations and tinnitus. These results highlight AI's potential as a clinical decision support tool in CI candidacy, although further research is needed to refine its application in complex cases.

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
Audiology Research
Audiology Research AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
23.50%
发文量
56
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: The mission of Audiology Research is to publish contemporary, ethical, clinically relevant scientific researches related to the basic science and clinical aspects of the auditory and vestibular system and diseases of the ear that can be used by clinicians, scientists and specialists to improve understanding and treatment of patients with audiological and neurotological disorders.
×
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