Assessing the accuracy and completeness of artificial intelligence language models in providing information on methotrexate use

Communicative competence of generative artificial intelligence in responding to patient queries about colorectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

To examine the ability of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) to answer patients' questions regarding colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

Ten clinically relevant questions about CRC were selected from top-rated hospitals' websites and patient surveys and presented to three GAI tools (Chatbot Generative Pre-Trained Transformer [GPT-4], Google Bard, and CLOVA X). Their responses were compared with answers from the CRC information book. Response evaluation was performed by two groups, each consisting of five healthcare professionals (HCP) and patients. Each question was scored on a 1-5 Likert scale based on four evaluation criteria (maximum score, 20 points/question).

RESULTS

In an analysis including only HCPs, the information book scored 11.8 ± 1.2, GPT-4 scored 13.5 ± 1.1, Google Bard scored 11.5 ± 0.7, and CLOVA X scored 12.2 ± 1.4 (P = 0.001). The score of GPT-4 was significantly higher than those of the information book (P = 0.020) and Google Bard (P = 0.001). In an analysis including only patients, the information book scored 14.1 ± 1.4, GPT-4 scored 15.2 ± 1.8, Google Bard scored 15.5 ± 1.8, and CLOVA X scored 14.4 ± 1.8, without significant differences (P = 0.234). When both groups of evaluators were included, the information book scored 13.0 ± 0.9, GPT-4 scored 14.4 ± 1.2, Google Bard scored 13.5 ± 1.0, and CLOVA X scored 13.3 ± 1.5 (P = 0.070).

CONCLUSION

The three GAIs demonstrated similar or better communicative competence than the information book regarding questions related to CRC surgery in Korean. If high-quality medical information provided by GAI is supervised properly by HCPs and published as an information book, it could be helpful for patients to obtain accurate information and make informed decisions.

Evaluation of ChatGPT-Generated Educational Patient Pamphlets for Common Interventional Radiology Procedures

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of educational patient pamphlets created by ChatGPT, a large language model, for common interventional radiology (IR) procedures.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twenty frequently performed IR procedures were selected, and five users were tasked to independently request ChatGPT to generate educational patient pamphlets for each procedure using identical commands. Subsequently, two independent radiologists assessed the content, quality, and accuracy of the pamphlets. The review focused on identifying potential errors, inaccuracies, the consistency of pamphlets.

RESULTS

In a thorough analysis of the education pamphlets, we identified shortcomings in 30% (30/100) of pamphlets, with a total of 34 specific inaccuracies, including missing information about sedation for the procedure (10/34), inaccuracies related to specific procedural-related complications (8/34). A key-word co-occurrence network showed consistent themes within each group of pamphlets, while a line-by-line comparison at the level of users and across different procedures showed statistically significant inconsistencies (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT-generated education pamphlets demonstrated potential clinical relevance and fairly consistent terminology; however, the pamphlets were not entirely accurate and exhibited some shortcomings and inter-user structural variabilities. To ensure patient safety, future improvements and refinements in large language models are warranted, while maintaining human supervision and expert validation.

The performance of artificial intelligence models in generating responses to general orthodontic questions: ChatGPT vs Google Bard

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of 2 artificial intelligence (AI) models, Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer-3.5 (ChatGPT-3.5; OpenAI, San Francisco, Calif) and Google Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (Google Bard; Bard Experiment, Google, Mountain View, Calif), in terms of response accuracy, completeness, generation time, and response length when answering general orthodontic questions.

METHODS

A team of orthodontic specialists developed a set of 100 questions in 10 orthodontic domains. One author submitted the questions to both ChatGPT and Google Bard. The AI-generated responses from both models were randomly assigned into 2 forms and sent to 5 blinded and independent assessors. The quality of AI-generated responses was evaluated using a newly developed tool for accuracy of information and completeness. In addition, response generation time and length were recorded.

RESULTS

The accuracy and completeness of responses were high in both AI models. The median accuracy score was 9 (interquartile range [IQR]: 8-9) for ChatGPT and 8 (IQR: 8-9) for Google Bard (Median difference: 1; P <0.001). The median completeness score was similar in both models, with 8 (IQR: 8-9) for ChatGPT and 8 (IQR: 7-9) for Google Bard. The odds of accuracy and completeness were higher by 31% and 23% in ChatGPT than in Google Bard. Google Bard's response generation time was significantly shorter than that of ChatGPT by 10.4 second/question. However, both models were similar in terms of response length generation.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ChatGPT and Google Bard generated responses were rated with a high level of accuracy and completeness to the posed general orthodontic questions. However, acquiring answers was generally faster using the Google Bard model.

Comparison of the Audiological Knowledge of Three Chatbots: ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Bard

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate three chatbots - OpenAI ChatGPT, Microsoft Bing Chat (currently Copilot), and Google Bard (currently Gemini) - in terms of their responses to a defined set of audiological questions.

METHODS

Each chatbot was presented with the same 10 questions. The authors rated the responses on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Additional features, such as the number of inaccuracies or errors and the provision of references, were also examined.

RESULTS

Most responses given by all three chatbots were rated as satisfactory or better. However, all chatbots generated at least a few errors or inaccuracies. ChatGPT achieved the highest overall score, while Bard was the worst. Bard was also the only chatbot unable to provide a response to one of the questions. ChatGPT was the only chatbot that did not provide information about its sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Chatbots are an intriguing tool that can be used to access basic information in a specialized area like audiology. Nevertheless, one needs to be careful, as correct information is not infrequently mixed in with errors that are hard to pick up unless the user is well versed in the field.

ChatGPT performance in prosthodontics: Assessment of accuracy and repeatability in answer generation

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The artificial intelligence (AI) software program ChatGPT is based on large language models (LLMs) and is widely accessible. However, in prosthodontics, little is known about its performance in generating answers.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the performance of ChatGPT in generating answers about removable dental prostheses (RDPs) and tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty short questions were designed about RDPs and tooth-supported FDP, and 30 answers were generated for each of the questions using ChatGPT-4 in October 2023. The 900 generated answers were independently graded by experts using a 3-point Likert scale. The relative frequency and absolute percentage of answers were described. Accuracy was assessed using the Wald binomial method, while repeatability was evaluated using percentage agreement, Brennan and Prediger coefficient, Conger generalized Cohen kappa, Fleiss kappa, Gwet AC, and Krippendorff alpha methods. Confidence intervals were set at 95%. Statistical analysis was performed using the STATA software program.

RESULTS

The performance of ChatGPT in generating answers related to RDP and tooth-supported FDP was limited. The answers showed a reliability of 25.6%, with a confidence range between 22.9% and 28.6%. The repeatability ranged from substantial to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that currently ChatGPT has limited ability to generate answers related to RDPs and tooth-supported FDPs. Therefore, ChatGPT cannot replace a dentist, and, if professionals were to use it, they should be aware of its limitations.