Suppr超能文献

人工智能虚拟助手在回答正畸常见问题方面的准确性。

The accuracy of artificial intelligence-based virtual assistants in responding to routinely asked questions about orthodontics.

出版信息

Angle Orthod. 2023 Jul 1;93(4):427-432. doi: 10.2319/100922-691.1.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the utility and efficiency of four voice-activated, artificial intelligence-based virtual assistants (Alexa, Google Assistant, Siri, and Cortana) in addressing commonly asked patient questions in orthodontic offices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two orthodontists, an orthodontic resident, an oral and maxillofacial radiologist, and a dental student used a standardized list of 12 questions to query and evaluate the four most common commercial virtual assistant devices. A modified Likert scale was used to evaluate their performance.

RESULTS

Google Assistant had the lowest (best) mean score, followed by Siri, Alexa, and Cortana. The score of Google Assistant was significantly lower than Alexa and Cortana. There was significant variablity in virtual assistant response scores among the evaluators, with the exception of Amazon Alexa. Lower scores indicated superior efficiency and utility.

CONCLUSIONS

The common commercially available virtual assistants tested in this study showed significant differences in how they responded to users. There were also significant differences in their performance when responding to common orthodontic queries. An intelligent virtual assistant with evidence-based responses specifically curated for orthodontics may be a good solution to address this issue. The investigators in this study agreed that such a device would provide value to patients and clinicians.

摘要

目的

评估 4 种语音激活的人工智能虚拟助手(Alexa、Google Assistant、Siri 和 Cortana)在解答正畸诊室中常见患者问题方面的实用性和效率。

材料与方法

2 名正畸医生、1 名正畸住院医师、1 名口腔颌面放射科医生和 1 名牙科学生使用标准化的 12 个问题列表对 4 种最常见的商业虚拟助手设备进行查询和评估。采用改良的李克特量表对其性能进行评估。

结果

Google Assistant 的平均得分最低(最佳),其次是 Siri、Alexa 和 Cortana。Google Assistant 的得分明显低于 Alexa 和 Cortana。评估者对虚拟助手的回答得分存在显著差异,亚马逊 Alexa 除外。得分越低表示效率和实用性越高。

结论

本研究测试的常见商业虚拟助手在对用户的响应方式上存在显著差异。它们在回答常见正畸查询方面的表现也存在显著差异。专门为正畸设计的具有循证回复的智能虚拟助手可能是解决这一问题的一个很好的方法。本研究的调查人员一致认为,这样的设备将为患者和临床医生提供价值。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

5
Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: Chances and Challenges.人工智能在牙科领域的应用:机遇与挑战。
J Dent Res. 2020 Jul;99(7):769-774. doi: 10.1177/0022034520915714. Epub 2020 Apr 21.
9
Conversational agents in healthcare: a systematic review.医疗保健中的会话代理:系统评价。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Sep 1;25(9):1248-1258. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy072.
10
Artificial intelligence in healthcare: past, present and future.人工智能在医疗保健中的应用:过去、现在和未来。
Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2017 Jun 21;2(4):230-243. doi: 10.1136/svn-2017-000101. eCollection 2017 Dec.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验