Evaluating the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Providing Patient Education for Chinese Patients With Ocular Myasthenia Gravis: Mixed Methods Study.

Ocular myasthenia gravis (OMG) is a neuromuscular disorder primarily affecting the extraocular muscles, leading to ptosis and diplopia. Effective patient education is crucial for disease management; however, in China, limited health care resources often restrict patients' access to personalized medical guidance. Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as potential tools to bridge this gap by providing instant, AI-driven health information. However, their accuracy and readability in educating patients with OMG remain uncertain. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of multiple LLMs in the education of Chinese patients with OMG. Specifically, the validity of these models in answering patients with OMG-related questions was assessed through accuracy, completeness, readability, usefulness, and safety, and patients' ratings of their usability and readability were analyzed. The study was conducted in two phases: 130 choice ophthalmology examination questions were input into 5 different LLMs. Their performance was compared with that of undergraduates, master's students, and ophthalmology residents. In addition, 23 common patients with OMG-related patient questions were posed to 4 LLMs, and their responses were evaluated by ophthalmologists across 5 domains. In the second phase, 20 patients with OMG interacted with the 2 LLMs from the first phase, each asking 3 questions. Patients assessed the responses for satisfaction and readability, while ophthalmologists evaluated the responses again using the 5 domains. ChatGPT o1-preview achieved the highest accuracy rate of 73% on 130 ophthalmology examination questions, outperforming other LLMs and professional groups like undergraduates and master's students. For 23 common patients with OMG-related questions, ChatGPT o1-preview scored highest in correctness (4.44), completeness (4.44), helpfulness (4.47), and safety (4.6). GEMINI (Google DeepMind) provided the easiest-to-understand responses in readability assessments, while GPT-4o had the most complex responses, suitable for readers with higher education levels. In the second phase with 20 patients with OMG, ChatGPT o1-preview received higher satisfaction scores than Ernie 3.5 (Baidu; 4.40 vs 3.89, P=.002), although Ernie 3.5's responses were slightly more readable (4.31 vs 4.03, P=.01). LLMs such as ChatGPT o1-preview may have the potential to enhance patient education. Addressing challenges such as misinformation risk, readability issues, and ethical considerations is crucial for their effective and safe integration into clinical practice.

Wei B ，Yao L ，Hu X ，Hu Y ，Rao J ，Ji Y ，Dong Z ，Duan Y ，Wu X ... -  《JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH》

Do large language model chatbots perform better than established patient information resources in answering patient questions? A comparative study on melanoma.

Large language models (LLMs) have a potential role in providing adequate patient information. To compare the quality of LLM responses with established Dutch patient information resources (PIRs) in answering patient questions regarding melanoma. Responses from ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0, Gemini, and three leading Dutch melanoma PIRs to 50 melanoma-specific questions were examined at baseline and for LLMs again after 8 months. Outcomes included (medical) accuracy, completeness, personalization, readability and, additionally, reproducibility for LLMs. Comparative analyses were performed within LLMs and PIRs using Friedman's Anova, and between best-performing LLMs and gold-standard (GS) PIRs using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Within LLMs, ChatGPT-3.5 demonstrated the highest accuracy (P = 0.009). Gemini performed best in completeness (P < 0.001), personalization (P = 0.007) and readability (P < 0.001). PIRs were consistent in accuracy and completeness, with the general practitioner's website excelling in personalization (P = 0.013) and readability (P < 0.001). The best-performing LLMs outperformed the GS-PIR on completeness and personalization, yet it was less accurate and less readable. Over time, response reproducibility decreased for all LLMs, showing variability across outcomes. Although LLMs show potential in providing highly personalized and complete responses to patient questions regarding melanoma, improving and safeguarding accuracy, reproducibility and accessibility is crucial before they can replace or complement conventional PIRs.

Kamminga NCW ，Kievits JEC ，Plaisier PW ，Burgers JS ，van der Veldt AM ，van den Brand JAGJ ，Mulder M ，Wakkee M ，Lugtenberg M ，Nijsten T ... -  《-》

Is the information provided by large language models valid in educating patients about adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? An evaluation of content, clarity, and empathy : The perspective of the European Spine Study Group.

Large language models (LLM) have the potential to bridge knowledge gaps in patient education and enrich patient-surgeon interactions. This study evaluated three chatbots for delivering empathetic and precise adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) related information and management advice. Specifically, we assessed the accuracy, clarity, and relevance of the information provided, aiming to determine the effectiveness of LLMs in addressing common patient queries and enhancing their understanding of AIS. We sourced 20 webpages for the top frequently asked questions (FAQs) about AIS and formulated 10 critical questions based on them. Three advanced LLMs-ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Google Bard-were selected to answer these questions, with responses limited to 200 words. The LLMs' responses were evaluated by a blinded group of experienced deformity surgeons (members of the European Spine Study Group) from seven European spine centers. A pre-established 4-level rating system from excellent to unsatisfactory was used with a further rating for clarity, comprehensiveness, and empathy on the 5-point Likert scale. If not rated 'excellent', the raters were asked to report the reasons for their decision for each question. Lastly, raters were asked for their opinion towards AI in healthcare in general in six questions. The responses among all LLMs were 'excellent' in 26% of responses, with ChatGPT-4.0 leading (39%), followed by Bard (17%). ChatGPT-4.0 was rated superior to Bard and ChatGPT 3.5 (p = 0.003). Discrepancies among raters were significant (p < 0.0001), questioning inter-rater reliability. No substantial differences were noted in answer distribution by question (p = 0.43). The answers on diagnosis (Q2) and causes (Q4) of AIS were top-rated. The most dissatisfaction was seen in the answers regarding definitions (Q1) and long-term results (Q7). Exhaustiveness, clarity, empathy, and length of the answers were positively rated (> 3.0 on 5.0) and did not demonstrate any differences among LLMs. However, GPT-3.5 struggled with language suitability and empathy, while Bard's responses were overly detailed and less empathetic. Overall, raters found that 9% of answers were off-topic and 22% contained clear mistakes. Our study offers crucial insights into the strengths and weaknesses of current LLMs in AIS patient and parent education, highlighting the promise of advancements like ChatGPT-4.o and Gemini alongside the need for continuous improvement in empathy, contextual understanding, and language appropriateness.

Lang S ，Vitale J ，Galbusera F ，Fekete T ，Boissiere L ，Charles YP ，Yucekul A ，Yilgor C ，Núñez-Pereira S ，Haddad S ，Gomez-Rice A ，Mehta J ，Pizones J ，Pellisé F ，Obeid I ，Alanay A ，Kleinstück F ，Loibl M ，ESSG European Spine Study Group ... -  《-》

Performance of three artificial intelligence (AI)-based large language models in standardized testing; implications for AI-assisted dental education.

The emerging rise in novel computer technologies and automated data analytics has the potential to change the course of dental education. In line with our long-term goal of harnessing the power of AI to augment didactic teaching, the objective of this study was to quantify and compare the accuracy of responses provided by ChatGPT (GPT-4 and GPT-3.5) and Google Gemini, the three primary large language models (LLMs), to human graduate students (control group) to the annual in-service examination questions posed by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP). Under a comparative cross-sectional study design, a corpus of 1312 questions from the annual in-service examination of AAP administered between 2020 and 2023 were presented to the LLMs. Their responses were analyzed using chi-square tests, and the performance was juxtaposed to the scores of periodontal residents from corresponding years, as the human control group. Additionally, two sub-analyses were performed: one on the performance of the LLMs on each section of the exam; and in answering the most difficult questions. ChatGPT-4 (total average: 79.57%) outperformed all human control groups as well as GPT-3.5 and Google Gemini in all exam years (p < .001). This chatbot showed an accuracy range between 78.80% and 80.98% across the various exam years. Gemini consistently recorded superior performance with scores of 70.65% (p = .01), 73.29% (p = .02), 75.73% (p < .01), and 72.18% (p = .0008) for the exams from 2020 to 2023 compared to ChatGPT-3.5, which achieved 62.5%, 68.24%, 69.83%, and 59.27% respectively. Google Gemini (72.86%) surpassed the average scores achieved by first- (63.48% ± 31.67) and second-year residents (66.25% ± 31.61) when all exam years combined. However, it could not surpass that of third-year residents (69.06% ± 30.45). Within the confines of this analysis, ChatGPT-4 exhibited a robust capability in answering AAP in-service exam questions in terms of accuracy and reliability while Gemini and ChatGPT-3.5 showed a weaker performance. These findings underscore the potential of deploying LLMs as an educational tool in periodontics and oral implantology domains. However, the current limitations of these models such as inability to effectively process image-based inquiries, the propensity for generating inconsistent responses to the same prompts, and achieving high (80% by GPT-4) but not absolute accuracy rates should be considered. An objective comparison of their capability versus their capacity is required to further develop this field of study.

Sabri H ，Saleh MHA ，Hazrati P ，Merchant K ，Misch J ，Kumar PS ，Wang HL ，Barootchi S ... -  《-》

Is Information About Musculoskeletal Malignancies From Large Language Models or Web Resources at a Suitable Reading Level for Patients?

Patients and caregivers may experience immense distress when receiving the diagnosis of a primary musculoskeletal malignancy and subsequently turn to internet resources for more information. It is not clear whether these resources, including Google and ChatGPT, offer patients information that is readable, a measure of how easy text is to understand. Since many patients turn to Google and artificial intelligence resources for healthcare information, we thought it was important to ascertain whether the information they find is readable and easy to understand. The objective of this study was to compare readability of Google search results and ChatGPT answers to frequently asked questions and assess whether these sources meet NIH recommendations for readability. (1) What is the readability of ChatGPT-3.5 as a source of patient information for the three most common primary bone malignancies compared with top online resources from Google search? (2) Do ChatGPT-3.5 responses and online resources meet NIH readability guidelines for patient education materials? This was a cross-sectional analysis of the 12 most common online questions about osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and Ewing sarcoma. To be consistent with other studies of similar design that utilized national society frequently asked questions lists, questions were selected from the American Cancer Society and categorized based on content, including diagnosis, treatment, and recovery and prognosis. Google was queried using all 36 questions, and top responses were recorded. Author types, such as hospital systems, national health organizations, or independent researchers, were recorded. ChatGPT-3.5 was provided each question in independent queries without further prompting. Responses were assessed with validated reading indices to determine readability by grade level. An independent t-test was performed with significance set at p < 0.05. Google (n = 36) and ChatGPT-3.5 (n = 36) answers were recorded, 12 for each of the three cancer types. Reading grade levels based on mean readability scores were 11.0 ± 2.9 and 16.1 ± 3.6, respectively. This corresponds to the eleventh grade reading level for Google and a fourth-year undergraduate student level for ChatGPT-3.5. Google answers were more readable across all individual indices, without differences in word count. No difference in readability was present across author type, question category, or cancer type. Of 72 total responses across both search modalities, none met NIH readability criteria at the sixth-grade level. Google material was presented at a high school reading level, whereas ChatGPT-3.5 was at an undergraduate reading level. The readability of both resources was inadequate based on NIH recommendations. Improving readability is crucial for better patient understanding during cancer treatment. Physicians should assess patients' needs, offer them tailored materials, and guide them to reliable resources to prevent reliance on online information that is hard to understand. Level III, prognostic study.

Guirguis PG ，Youssef MP ，Punreddy A ，Botros M ，Raiford M ，McDowell S ... -  《-》