评估人工智能生成的脊柱侧弯教材的可读性和质量:五种语言模型的比较分析。

IF 3.9 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Mengchu Zhao, Mi Zhou, Yexi Han, Xiaomei Song, Youbin Zhou, Haoning He
{"title":"评估人工智能生成的脊柱侧弯教材的可读性和质量:五种语言模型的比较分析。","authors":"Mengchu Zhao, Mi Zhou, Yexi Han, Xiaomei Song, Youbin Zhou, Haoning He","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-19370-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The complexity of scoliosis-related terminology and treatment options often hinders patients and caregivers from understanding their choices, making it difficult to make informed decisions. As a result, many patients seek guidance from artificial intelligence (AI) tools. However, AI-generated health content may suffer from low readability, inconsistency, and questionable quality, posing risks of misinformation. This study evaluates the readability and informational quality of scoliosis-related content produced by AI. We evaluated five AI models-ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o1, ChatGPT-o3 mini-high, DeepSeek-V3, and DeepSeek-R1-by querying each on three types of scoliosis: congenital, adolescent idiopathic, and neuromuscular. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and FleschKincaid Reading Ease (FKRE), while content quality was evaluated using the DISCERN score. Statistical analyses were performed in R-Studio. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). DeepSeek-R1 achieved the lowest FKGL (6.2) and the highest FKRE (64.5), indicating superior readability. In contrast, ChatGPT-o1 and ChatGPT-o3 mini-high scored above FKGL 12.0, requiring college-level reading skills. Despite readability differences, DISCERN scores remained stable across models (~ 50.5/80) with high inter-rater agreement (ICC = 0.85-0.87), suggesting a fair level quality. However, all responses lacked citations, limiting reliability. AI-generated scoliosis education materials vary significantly in readability, with DeepSeek-R1 being the most accessible. Future AI models should enhance readability without compromising information accuracy and integrate real-time citation mechanisms for improved trustworthiness.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"35454"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the readability and quality of AI-generated scoliosis education materials: a comparative analysis of five language models.\",\"authors\":\"Mengchu Zhao, Mi Zhou, Yexi Han, Xiaomei Song, Youbin Zhou, Haoning He\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-19370-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The complexity of scoliosis-related terminology and treatment options often hinders patients and caregivers from understanding their choices, making it difficult to make informed decisions. As a result, many patients seek guidance from artificial intelligence (AI) tools. However, AI-generated health content may suffer from low readability, inconsistency, and questionable quality, posing risks of misinformation. This study evaluates the readability and informational quality of scoliosis-related content produced by AI. We evaluated five AI models-ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o1, ChatGPT-o3 mini-high, DeepSeek-V3, and DeepSeek-R1-by querying each on three types of scoliosis: congenital, adolescent idiopathic, and neuromuscular. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and FleschKincaid Reading Ease (FKRE), while content quality was evaluated using the DISCERN score. Statistical analyses were performed in R-Studio. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). DeepSeek-R1 achieved the lowest FKGL (6.2) and the highest FKRE (64.5), indicating superior readability. In contrast, ChatGPT-o1 and ChatGPT-o3 mini-high scored above FKGL 12.0, requiring college-level reading skills. Despite readability differences, DISCERN scores remained stable across models (~ 50.5/80) with high inter-rater agreement (ICC = 0.85-0.87), suggesting a fair level quality. However, all responses lacked citations, limiting reliability. AI-generated scoliosis education materials vary significantly in readability, with DeepSeek-R1 being the most accessible. Future AI models should enhance readability without compromising information accuracy and integrate real-time citation mechanisms for improved trustworthiness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"35454\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19370-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19370-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

脊柱侧凸相关术语和治疗方案的复杂性常常阻碍患者和护理人员理解他们的选择,使其难以做出明智的决定。因此,许多患者寻求人工智能(AI)工具的指导。然而,人工智能生成的健康内容可能存在可读性低、不一致和质量可疑的问题,从而带来错误信息的风险。本研究评估了人工智能制作的脊柱侧凸相关内容的可读性和信息质量。我们评估了五种AI模型——chatgpt - 40、chatgpt - 01、chatgpt - 03 mini-high、DeepSeek-V3和deepseek - r1——通过查询三种类型的脊柱侧凸:先天性、青少年特发性和神经肌肉性。使用Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL)和FleschKincaid Reading Ease (FKRE)评估可读性,而使用DISCERN评分评估内容质量。在R-Studio中进行统计分析。用类内相关系数(Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, ICC)计算组间信度。DeepSeek-R1获得了最低的FKGL(6.2)和最高的FKRE(64.5),表明具有较好的可读性。相比之下,chatgpt - 01和chatgpt - 03的得分在FKGL 12.0以上,需要大学水平的阅读能力。尽管存在可读性差异,但各模型的DISCERN分数保持稳定(~ 50.5/80),具有较高的评分一致性(ICC = 0.85-0.87),表明质量水平相当。然而,所有的回答都缺乏引用,限制了可靠性。人工智能生成的脊柱侧弯教育材料的可读性差异很大,其中DeepSeek-R1是最容易理解的。未来的人工智能模型应该在不影响信息准确性的情况下提高可读性,并整合实时引用机制以提高可信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the readability and quality of AI-generated scoliosis education materials: a comparative analysis of five language models.

The complexity of scoliosis-related terminology and treatment options often hinders patients and caregivers from understanding their choices, making it difficult to make informed decisions. As a result, many patients seek guidance from artificial intelligence (AI) tools. However, AI-generated health content may suffer from low readability, inconsistency, and questionable quality, posing risks of misinformation. This study evaluates the readability and informational quality of scoliosis-related content produced by AI. We evaluated five AI models-ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o1, ChatGPT-o3 mini-high, DeepSeek-V3, and DeepSeek-R1-by querying each on three types of scoliosis: congenital, adolescent idiopathic, and neuromuscular. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and FleschKincaid Reading Ease (FKRE), while content quality was evaluated using the DISCERN score. Statistical analyses were performed in R-Studio. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). DeepSeek-R1 achieved the lowest FKGL (6.2) and the highest FKRE (64.5), indicating superior readability. In contrast, ChatGPT-o1 and ChatGPT-o3 mini-high scored above FKGL 12.0, requiring college-level reading skills. Despite readability differences, DISCERN scores remained stable across models (~ 50.5/80) with high inter-rater agreement (ICC = 0.85-0.87), suggesting a fair level quality. However, all responses lacked citations, limiting reliability. AI-generated scoliosis education materials vary significantly in readability, with DeepSeek-R1 being the most accessible. Future AI models should enhance readability without compromising information accuracy and integrate real-time citation mechanisms for improved trustworthiness.

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
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19567
审稿时长
3.9 months
期刊介绍: We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.
×
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