Evaluating ChatGPT to test its robustness as an interactive information database of radiation oncology and to assess its responses to common queries from radiotherapy patients: A single institution investigation.

PURPOSE

Commercial vendors have created artificial intelligence (AI) tools for use in all aspects of life and medicine, including radiation oncology. AI innovations will likely disrupt workflows in the field of radiation oncology. However, limited data exist on using AI-based chatbots about the quality of radiation oncology information. This study aims to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT, an AI-based chatbot, in answering patients' questions during their first visit to the radiation oncology outpatient department and test knowledge of ChatGPT in radiation oncology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Expert opinion was formulated using a set of ten standard questions of patients encountered in outpatient department practice. A blinded expert opinion was taken for the ten questions on common queries of patients in outpatient department visits, and the same questions were evaluated on ChatGPT version 3.5 (ChatGPT 3.5). The answers by expert and ChatGPT were independently evaluated for accuracy by three scientific reviewers. Additionally, a comparison was made for the extent of similarity of answers between ChatGPT and experts by a response scoring for each answer. Word count and Flesch-Kincaid readability score and grade were done for the responses obtained from expert and ChatGPT. A comparison of the answers of ChatGPT and expert was done with a Likert scale. As a second component of the study, we tested the technical knowledge of ChatGPT. Ten multiple choice questions were framed with increasing order of difficulty - basic, intermediate and advanced, and the responses were evaluated on ChatGPT. Statistical testing was done using SPSS version 27.

RESULTS

After expert review, the accuracy of expert opinion was 100%, and ChatGPT's was 80% (8/10) for regular questions encountered in outpatient department visits. A noticeable difference was observed in word count and readability of answers from expert opinion or ChatGPT. Of the ten multiple-choice questions for assessment of radiation oncology database, ChatGPT had an accuracy rate of 90% (9 out of 10). One answer to a basic-level question was incorrect, whereas all answers to intermediate and difficult-level questions were correct.

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT provides reasonably accurate information about routine questions encountered in the first outpatient department visit of the patient and also demonstrated a sound knowledge of the subject. The result of our study can inform the future development of educational tools in radiation oncology and may have implications in other medical fields. This is the first study that provides essential insight into the potentially positive capabilities of two components of ChatGPT: firstly, ChatGPT's response to common queries of patients at OPD visits, and secondly, the assessment of the radiation oncology knowledge base of ChatGPT.