人工智能在鼻窦术后护理中的应用:ChatGPT-4、谷歌Gemini和DeepSeek在患者教育和支持方面的比较研究

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Ali M Alsudays, Khaled A Almanea, Abdullah A Alhajlah, Ahmad Alroqi
{"title":"人工智能在鼻窦术后护理中的应用:ChatGPT-4、谷歌Gemini和DeepSeek在患者教育和支持方面的比较研究","authors":"Ali M Alsudays, Khaled A Almanea, Abdullah A Alhajlah, Ahmad Alroqi","doi":"10.1097/SCS.0000000000011922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) integration into postoperative care has demonstrated significant potential in enhancing patient care and support. This review demonstrates different findings from various studies to evaluate AI's impact on improving postoperative care outcomes, with a specific focus on its application to Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery (FESS) in the literature. This study aimed to compare the performance of 3 different large language models in addressing postoperative sinus care questions. The focus is to determining their utility in patient education and support following FESS.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This cross-sectional study was conducted over a 3-month period. Ten standardized questions were adapted from 3 identified online sources (University of Michigan Health, Kevin Caceres, MD, and GhiamMD). Each question was presented to all 3 AI chatbots under identical conditions, generating a total of 30 AI-generated responses for evaluation. A new chat window was used for every question to ensure unbiased responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings suggest that the number of words (P=0.026), number of sentences (P<0.001), and number of characters per word (P=0.007) were significantly higher in DeepSeek, but DeepSeek showed significantly lower in the number of words per sentence (P<0.001). According to evaluators, ChatGPT-4 ratings were better regarding the clarity of responses, whereas DeepSeek ratings were better in completeness. However, Google Gemini performed the least among the AI Chatbots. Interestingly, reading difficulties in the responses from Google Gemini and DeepSeek were somewhat higher than ChatGPT-4.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek had comparable ratings on the response's accuracy, relevance, and usefulness. However, the number of words, sentences, and characters per word was significantly higher in DeepSeek. Interestingly, Google Gemini's ratings lagged behind both ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek. Further investigations are required to determine which AI Chatbots offer the best responses in various clinical case scenarios, particularly in postoperative care in our region.</p>","PeriodicalId":15462,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Craniofacial Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial Intelligence in Postoperative Sinus Care: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT-4, Google Gemini, and DeepSeek in Patient Education and Support.\",\"authors\":\"Ali M Alsudays, Khaled A Almanea, Abdullah A Alhajlah, Ahmad Alroqi\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SCS.0000000000011922\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) integration into postoperative care has demonstrated significant potential in enhancing patient care and support. This review demonstrates different findings from various studies to evaluate AI's impact on improving postoperative care outcomes, with a specific focus on its application to Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery (FESS) in the literature. This study aimed to compare the performance of 3 different large language models in addressing postoperative sinus care questions. The focus is to determining their utility in patient education and support following FESS.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This cross-sectional study was conducted over a 3-month period. Ten standardized questions were adapted from 3 identified online sources (University of Michigan Health, Kevin Caceres, MD, and GhiamMD). Each question was presented to all 3 AI chatbots under identical conditions, generating a total of 30 AI-generated responses for evaluation. A new chat window was used for every question to ensure unbiased responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings suggest that the number of words (P=0.026), number of sentences (P<0.001), and number of characters per word (P=0.007) were significantly higher in DeepSeek, but DeepSeek showed significantly lower in the number of words per sentence (P<0.001). According to evaluators, ChatGPT-4 ratings were better regarding the clarity of responses, whereas DeepSeek ratings were better in completeness. However, Google Gemini performed the least among the AI Chatbots. Interestingly, reading difficulties in the responses from Google Gemini and DeepSeek were somewhat higher than ChatGPT-4.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek had comparable ratings on the response's accuracy, relevance, and usefulness. However, the number of words, sentences, and characters per word was significantly higher in DeepSeek. Interestingly, Google Gemini's ratings lagged behind both ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek. Further investigations are required to determine which AI Chatbots offer the best responses in various clinical case scenarios, particularly in postoperative care in our region.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15462,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Craniofacial Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Craniofacial Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000011922\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Craniofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000011922","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能(AI)集成到术后护理中,在加强患者护理和支持方面显示出巨大的潜力。本综述展示了不同研究的不同发现,以评估人工智能对改善术后护理结果的影响,并特别关注其在功能性内窥镜鼻窦手术(FESS)中的应用。本研究旨在比较三种不同的大型语言模型在解决术后鼻窦护理问题中的表现。重点是确定他们在FESS患者教育和支持中的效用。研究方法:本横断面研究为期3个月。10个标准化问题改编自3个确定的在线资源(密歇根大学健康,Kevin Caceres,医学博士和ghammd)。每个问题都在相同的条件下呈现给所有3个AI聊天机器人,总共产生30个AI生成的回答进行评估。每个问题都使用了一个新的聊天窗口,以确保公正的回答。结论:ChatGPT-4和DeepSeek在回答的准确性、相关性和有用性方面具有相当的评级。然而,在DeepSeek中,单词、句子和每个单词的字符数量明显更高。有趣的是,b谷歌Gemini的评级落后于ChatGPT-4和DeepSeek。需要进一步的研究来确定哪种人工智能聊天机器人在各种临床情况下提供最佳反应,特别是在我们地区的术后护理中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial Intelligence in Postoperative Sinus Care: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT-4, Google Gemini, and DeepSeek in Patient Education and Support.

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) integration into postoperative care has demonstrated significant potential in enhancing patient care and support. This review demonstrates different findings from various studies to evaluate AI's impact on improving postoperative care outcomes, with a specific focus on its application to Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery (FESS) in the literature. This study aimed to compare the performance of 3 different large language models in addressing postoperative sinus care questions. The focus is to determining their utility in patient education and support following FESS.

Methodology: This cross-sectional study was conducted over a 3-month period. Ten standardized questions were adapted from 3 identified online sources (University of Michigan Health, Kevin Caceres, MD, and GhiamMD). Each question was presented to all 3 AI chatbots under identical conditions, generating a total of 30 AI-generated responses for evaluation. A new chat window was used for every question to ensure unbiased responses.

Results: Findings suggest that the number of words (P=0.026), number of sentences (P<0.001), and number of characters per word (P=0.007) were significantly higher in DeepSeek, but DeepSeek showed significantly lower in the number of words per sentence (P<0.001). According to evaluators, ChatGPT-4 ratings were better regarding the clarity of responses, whereas DeepSeek ratings were better in completeness. However, Google Gemini performed the least among the AI Chatbots. Interestingly, reading difficulties in the responses from Google Gemini and DeepSeek were somewhat higher than ChatGPT-4.

Conclusion: Both ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek had comparable ratings on the response's accuracy, relevance, and usefulness. However, the number of words, sentences, and characters per word was significantly higher in DeepSeek. Interestingly, Google Gemini's ratings lagged behind both ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek. Further investigations are required to determine which AI Chatbots offer the best responses in various clinical case scenarios, particularly in postoperative care in our region.

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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
11.10%
发文量
968
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: ​The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery serves as a forum of communication for all those involved in craniofacial surgery, maxillofacial surgery and pediatric plastic surgery. Coverage ranges from practical aspects of craniofacial surgery to the basic science that underlies surgical practice. The journal publishes original articles, scientific reviews, editorials and invited commentary, abstracts and selected articles from international journals, and occasional international bibliographies in craniofacial surgery.
×
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