These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of the quality and quantity of artificial intelligence-generated responses about anesthesia and surgery: using ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0.
    Author: Choi J, Oh AR, Park J, Kang RA, Yoo SY, Lee DJ, Yang K.
    Journal: Front Med (Lausanne); 2024; 11():1400153. PubMed ID: 39055693.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: The large-scale artificial intelligence (AI) language model chatbot, Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), is renowned for its ability to provide data quickly and efficiently. This study aimed to assess the medical responses of ChatGPT regarding anesthetic procedures. METHODS: Two anesthesiologist authors selected 30 questions representing inquiries patients might have about surgery and anesthesia. These questions were inputted into two versions of ChatGPT in English. A total of 31 anesthesiologists then evaluated each response for quality, quantity, and overall assessment, using 5-point Likert scales. Descriptive statistics summarized the scores, and a paired sample t-test compared ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0. RESULTS: Regarding quality, "appropriate" was the most common rating for both ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 (40 and 48%, respectively). For quantity, responses were deemed "insufficient" in 59% of cases for 3.5, and "adequate" in 69% for 4.0. In overall assessment, 3 points were most common for 3.5 (36%), while 4 points were predominant for 4.0 (42%). Mean quality scores were 3.40 and 3.73, and mean quantity scores were - 0.31 (between insufficient and adequate) and 0.03 (between adequate and excessive), respectively. The mean overall score was 3.21 for 3.5 and 3.67 for 4.0. Responses from 4.0 showed statistically significant improvement in three areas. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT generated responses mostly ranging from appropriate to slightly insufficient, providing an overall average amount of information. Version 4.0 outperformed 3.5, and further research is warranted to investigate the potential utility of AI chatbots in assisting patients with medical information.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]