Can artificial intelligence models serve as patient information consultants in orthodontics?

To evaluate the accuracy, reliability, quality, and readability of responses generated by ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot in relation to orthodontic clear aligners. Frequently asked questions by patients/laypersons about clear aligners on websites were identified using the Google search tool and these questions were posed to ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot AI models. Responses were assessed using a five-point Likert scale for accuracy, the modified DISCERN scale for reliability, the Global Quality Scale (GQS) for quality, and the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) for readability. ChatGPT-4 responses had the highest mean Likert score (4.5 ± 0.61), followed by Copilot (4.35 ± 0.81), ChatGPT-3.5 (4.15 ± 0.75) and Gemini (4.1 ± 0.72). The difference between the Likert scores of the chatbot models was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Copilot had a significantly higher modified DISCERN and GQS score compared to both Gemini, ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). Gemini's modified DISCERN and GQS score was statistically higher than ChatGPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). Gemini also had a significantly higher FRES compared to both ChatGPT-4, Copilot and ChatGPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). The mean FRES was 38.39 ± 11.56 for ChatGPT-3.5, 43.88 ± 10.13 for ChatGPT-4 and 41.72 ± 10.74 for Copilot, indicating that the responses were difficult to read according to the reading level. The mean FRES for Gemini is 54.12 ± 10.27, indicating that Gemini's responses are more readable than other chatbots. All chatbot models provided generally accurate, moderate reliable and moderate to good quality answers to questions about the clear aligners. Furthermore, the readability of the responses was difficult. ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot have significant potential as patient information tools in orthodontics, however, to be fully effective they need to be supplemented with more evidence-based information and improved readability.

Dursun D ，Bilici Geçer R 《BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making》

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

There is no study that comprehensively evaluates data on the readability and quality of "palliative care" information provided by artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots ChatGPT®, Bard®, Gemini®, Copilot®, Perplexity®. Our study is an observational and cross-sectional original research study. In our study, AI chatbots ChatGPT®, Bard®, Gemini®, Copilot®, and Perplexity® 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®, Copilot®, Perplexity®, ChatGPT®, Gemini®, from easy to difficult (P < .05). In our study, the median readability indexes of each of the 5 AI chatbots Bard®, Copilot®, Perplexity®, ChatGPT®, Gemini® 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® (P < .001). Gemini® 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®, Copilot®, Perplexity®, ChatGPT®, Gemini®, 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.

Hancı V ，Ergün B ，Gül Ş ，Uzun Ö ，Erdemir İ ，Hancı FB ... -  《-》

Assessing the Readability of Patient Education Materials on Cardiac Catheterization From Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: An Observational Cross-Sectional Study.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a burgeoning new field that has increased in popularity over the past couple of years, coinciding with the public release of large language model (LLM)-driven chatbots. These chatbots, such as ChatGPT, can be engaged directly in conversation, allowing users to ask them questions or issue other commands. Since LLMs are trained on large amounts of text data, they can also answer questions reliably and factually, an ability that has allowed them to serve as a source for medical inquiries. This study seeks to assess the readability of patient education materials on cardiac catheterization across four of the most common chatbots: ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and Meta AI. A set of 10 questions regarding cardiac catheterization was developed using website-based patient education materials on the topic. We then asked these questions in consecutive order to four of the most common chatbots: ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and Meta AI. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) was used to assess the readability score. Readability grade levels were assessed using six tools: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Automated Readability Index (ARI), and FORCAST Grade Level. The mean FRES across all four chatbots was 40.2, while overall mean grade levels for the four chatbots were 11.2, 13.7, 13.7, 13.3, 11.2, and 11.6 across the FKGL, GFI, CLI, SMOG, ARI, and FORCAST indices, respectively. Mean reading grade levels across the six tools were 14.8 for ChatGPT, 12.3 for Microsoft Copilot, 13.1 for Google Gemini, and 9.6 for Meta AI. Further, FRES values for the four chatbots were 31, 35.8, 36.4, and 57.7, respectively. This study shows that AI chatbots are capable of providing answers to medical questions regarding cardiac catheterization. However, the responses across the four chatbots had overall mean reading grade levels at the 11th-13th-grade level, depending on the tool used. This means that the materials were at the high school and even college reading level, which far exceeds the recommended sixth-grade level for patient education materials. Further, there is significant variability in the readability levels provided by different chatbots as, across all six grade-level assessments, Meta AI had the lowest scores and ChatGPT generally had the highest.

Behers BJ ，Vargas IA ，Behers BM ，Rosario MA ，Wojtas CN ，Deevers AC ，Hamad KM ... -  《Cureus》

Assessing the Responses of Large Language Models (ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot) to Frequently Asked Questions in Breast Imaging: A Study on Readability and Accuracy.

Background Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot, have been instrumental in various domains, including healthcare, where they enhance health literacy and aid in patient decision-making. Given the complexities involved in breast imaging procedures, accurate and comprehensible information is vital for patient engagement and compliance. This study aims to evaluate the readability and accuracy of the information provided by three prominent LLMs, ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot, in response to frequently asked questions in breast imaging, assessing their potential to improve patient understanding and facilitate healthcare communication. Methodology We collected the most common questions on breast imaging from clinical practice and posed them to LLMs. We then evaluated the responses in terms of readability and accuracy. Responses from LLMs were analyzed for readability using the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tests and for accuracy through a radiologist-developed Likert-type scale. Results The study found significant variations among LLMs. Gemini and Microsoft Copilot scored higher on readability scales (p < 0.001), indicating their responses were easier to understand. In contrast, ChatGPT-4 demonstrated greater accuracy in its responses (p < 0.001). Conclusions While LLMs such as ChatGPT-4 show promise in providing accurate responses, readability issues may limit their utility in patient education. Conversely, Gemini and Microsoft Copilot, despite being less accurate, are more accessible to a broader patient audience. Ongoing adjustments and evaluations of these models are essential to ensure they meet the diverse needs of patients, emphasizing the need for continuous improvement and oversight in the deployment of artificial intelligence technologies in healthcare.

Tepe M ，Emekli E 《Cureus》

Accuracy and Readability of Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Vasectomy-Related Questions: Public Beware.

Purpose Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly gained popularity with the growth of ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, USA) and other large-language model chatbots, and these programs have tremendous potential to impact medicine. One important area of consequence in medicine and public health is that patients may use these programs in search of answers to medical questions. Despite the increased utilization of AI chatbots by the public, there is little research to assess the reliability of ChatGPT and alternative programs when queried for medical information. This study seeks to elucidate the accuracy and readability of AI chatbots in answering patient questions regarding urology. As vasectomy is one of the most common urologic procedures, this study investigates AI-generated responses to frequently asked vasectomy-related questions. For this study, five popular and free-to-access AI platforms were utilized to undertake this investigation. Methods Fifteen vasectomy-related questions were individually queried to five AI chatbots from November-December 2023: ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, USA), Bard (Google Inc., Mountainview, USA) Bing (Microsoft, Redmond, USA) Perplexity (Perplexity AI Inc., San Francisco, USA), and Claude (Anthropic, San Francisco, USA). Responses from each platform were graded by two attending urologists, two urology research faculty, and one urological resident physician using a Likert (1-6) scale: (1-completely inaccurate, 6-completely accurate) based on comparison to existing American Urological Association guidelines. Flesch-Kincaid Grade levels (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease scores (FRES) (1-100) were calculated for each response. To assess differences in Likert, FRES, and FKGL, Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed using GraphPad Prism V10.1.0 (GraphPad, San Diego, USA) with Alpha set at 0.05. Results Analysis shows that ChatGPT provided the most accurate responses across the five AI chatbots with an average score of 5.04 on the Likert scale. Subsequently, Microsoft Bing (4.91), Anthropic Claude (4.65), Google Bard (4.43), and Perplexity (4.41) followed. All five chatbots were found to score, on average, higher than 4.41 corresponding to a score of at least "somewhat accurate." Google Bard received the highest Flesch Reading Ease score (49.67) and lowest Grade level (10.1) when compared to the other chatbots. Anthropic Claude scored 46.7 on the FRES and 10.55 on the FKGL. Microsoft Bing scored 45.57 on the FRES and 11.56 on the FKGL. Perplexity scored 36.4 on the FRES and 13.29 on the FKGL. ChatGPT had the lowest FRES of 30.4 and highest FKGL of 14.2. Conclusion This study investigates the use of AI in medicine, specifically urology, and it helps to determine whether large-language model chatbots can be reliable sources of freely available medical information. All five AI chatbots on average were able to achieve at least "somewhat accurate" on a 6-point Likert scale. In terms of readability, all five AI chatbots on average had Flesch Reading Ease scores of less than 50 and were higher than a 10th-grade level. In this small-scale study, there were several significant differences identified between the readability scores of each AI chatbot. However, there were no significant differences found among their accuracies. Thus, our study suggests that major AI chatbots may perform similarly in their ability to be correct but differ in their ease of being comprehended by the general public.

Carlson JA ，Cheng RZ ，Lange A ，Nagalakshmi N ，Rabets J ，Shah T ，Sindhwani P ... -  《Cureus》