Assessment of readability, reliability, and quality of ChatGPT®, BARD®, Gemini®, Copilot®, Perplexity® responses on palliative care

被引:5
|
作者
Hanci, Volkan [1 ]
Ergun, Bisar [2 ]
Gul, Sanser [3 ]
Uzun, Ozcan [4 ]
Erdemir, Ismail [5 ]
Hanci, Ferid Baran [6 ]
机构
[1] Sincan Educ & Res Hosp, Clin Anesthesiol & Crit Care, TR-06930 Ankara, Turkiye
[2] Dr Ismail Fehmi Cumalioglu City Hosp, Clin Internal Med & Crit Care, Tekirdag, Turkiye
[3] Ankara Ataturk Sanatory Educ & Res Hosp, Clin Neurosurg, Ankara, Turkiye
[4] Yalova City Hosp, Clin Internal Med & Nephrol, Yalova, Turkiye
[5] Dokuz Eylul Univ, Fac Med, Dept Anesthesiol & Crit Care, Izmir, Turkiye
[6] Ostim Tech Univ, Fac Engn, Artificial Intelligence Engn Dept, Ankara, Turkiye
关键词
artificial intelligence; Bard (R); ChatGPT (R); Copilot (R); Gemini (R); online medical information; palliative care; Perplexity (R); readability; HEALTH LITERACY; EDUCATION; INFORMATION;
D O I
10.1097/MD.0000000000039305
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
There is no study that comprehensively evaluates data on the readability and quality of "palliative care" information provided by artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots ChatGPT (R), Bard (R), Gemini (R), Copilot (R), Perplexity (R). Our study is an observational and cross-sectional original research study. In our study, AI chatbots ChatGPT (R), Bard (R), Gemini (R), Copilot (R), and Perplexity (R) were asked to present the answers of the 100 questions most frequently asked by patients about palliative care. Responses from each 5 AI chatbots were analyzed separately. This study did not involve any human participants. Study results revealed significant differences between the readability assessments of responses from all 5 AI chatbots (P < .05). According to the results of our study, when different readability indexes were evaluated holistically, the readability of AI chatbot responses was evaluated as Bard (R), Copilot (R), Perplexity (R), ChatGPT (R), Gemini (R), from easy to difficult (P < .05). In our study, the median readability indexes of each of the 5 AI chatbots Bard (R), Copilot (R), Perplexity (R), ChatGPT (R), Gemini (R) responses were compared to the "recommended" 6th grade reading level. According to the results of our study answers of all 5 AI chatbots were compared with the 6th grade reading level, statistically significant differences were observed in the all formulas (P < .001). The answers of all 5 artificial intelligence robots were determined to be at an educational level well above the 6th grade level. The modified DISCERN and Journal of American Medical Association scores was found to be the highest in Perplexity (R) (P < .001). Gemini (R) responses were found to have the highest Global Quality Scale score (P < .001). It is emphasized that patient education materials should have a readability level of 6th grade level. Of the 5 AI chatbots whose answers about palliative care were evaluated, Bard (R), Copilot (R), Perplexity (R), ChatGPT (R), Gemini (R), their current answers were found to be well above the recommended levels in terms of readability of text content. Text content quality assessment scores are also low. Both the quality and readability of texts should be brought to appropriate recommended limits.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Validity and reliability of the breast cancer comfort assessment scale in palliative care
    Olmez, Rahime Yontem
    Cinar, Ilgun Ozen
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ASSESSMENT TOOLS IN EDUCATION, 2025, 12 (01):
  • [42] Assessing the Quality and Readability of Online Patient Information: ENT UK Patient E-Leaflets Versus ChatGPT Responses
    Ko, T. K.
    Shamil, E.
    Fan, K. S.
    Schuster-Bruce, J.
    Jaafar, N.
    Khwaja, S.
    Eynon-Lewis, N.
    D'Souza, A.
    Andrews, P.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2024, 111
  • [43] Quality of ChatGPT Responses to Questions Related to Pancreatic Cancer and its Surgical Care
    Zorays Moazzam
    Jordan Cloyd
    Henrique A. Lima
    Timothy M. Pawlik
    Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2023, 30 : 6284 - 6286
  • [44] Quality of ChatGPT Responses to Questions Related to Pancreatic Cancer and its Surgical Care
    Moazzam, Zorays
    Cloyd, Jordan
    Lima, Henrique A.
    Pawlik, Timothy M.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2023, 30 (11) : 6284 - 6286
  • [45] How readable and quality are online patient education materials about Helicobacter pylori?: Assessment of the readability, quality and reliability
    Hanci, Sevgi Yilmaz
    MEDICINE, 2023, 102 (43) : E35543
  • [46] QUALITY-OF-LIFE ASSESSMENT DURING A PALLIATIVE CARE PROGRAM
    VENTAFRIDDA, V
    DECONNO, F
    RIPAMONTI, C
    GAMBA, A
    TAMBURINI, M
    ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 1990, 1 (06) : 415 - 420
  • [47] The global reach of artificial intelligence in atopic dermatitis: The quality and reliability of ChatGPT responses in 8 languages
    Sulejmani, Pranvera
    Negris, Olivia
    Aoki, Valeria
    Aubert, Helene
    Chu, Chia-Yu
    Deleuran, Mette
    El Hachem, May
    Eichenfield, Lawrence
    Mosca, Ana
    Orfali, Raquel Leao
    Saint Aroman, Marketa
    Stalder, Jean-Francois
    Taieb, Alain
    Torrelo, Antonio
    Troya, David
    Trzeciak, Magdalena
    Vesttergaard, Christian
    Wollenberg, Andreas
    Lio, Peter
    JAAD INTERNATIONAL, 2024, 17 : 158 - 159
  • [48] Quality Palliative Care and the First Domain A Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement Project
    Lathrop, Laura A.
    Gottfried, Andrew W.
    JOURNAL OF HOSPICE & PALLIATIVE NURSING, 2015, 17 (06) : 517 - 523
  • [49] Assessment of the Reliability and Clinical Applicability of ChatGPT's Responses to Patients' Common Queries About Rosacea
    Yan, Sihan
    Du, Dan
    Liu, Xu
    Dai, Yingying
    Kim, Min-Kyu
    Zhou, Xinyu
    Wang, Lian
    Zhang, Lu
    Jiang, Xian
    PATIENT PREFERENCE AND ADHERENCE, 2024, 18 : 249 - 253
  • [50] Enhancing patient education on the role of tibial osteotomy in the management of knee osteoarthritis using a customized ChatGPT: a readability and quality assessment
    Fahy, Stephen
    Oehme, Stephan
    Milinkovic, Danko Dan
    Bartek, Benjamin
    FRONTIERS IN DIGITAL HEALTH, 2025, 6