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