Vaira Luigi Angelo, Lechien Jerome R, Maniaci Antonino, Tanda Giuseppe, Abbate Vincenzo, Allevi Fabiana, Arena Antonio, Beltramini Giada Anna, Bergonzani Michela, Bolzoni Alessandro Remigio, Crimi Salvatore, Frosolini Andrea, Gabriele Guido, Maglitto Fabio, Mayo-Yáñez Miguel, Orrù Ludovica, Petrocelli Marzia, Pucci Resi, Saibene Alberto Maria, Troise Stefania, Tel Alessandro, Vellone Valentino, Chiesa-Estomba Carlos Miguel, Boscolo-Rizzo Paolo, Salzano Giovanni, De Riu Giacomo
Maxillofacial Surgery Operative Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Pharmacy, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy; PhD School of Biomedical Science, Biomedical Sciences Department, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Department of Anatomy and Experimental Oncology, Mons School of Medicine, UMONS. Research Institute for Health Sciences and Technology, University of Mons (UMons), Mons, Belgium; Department of Otolaryngology-Head Neck Surgery, Elsan Polyclinic of Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2025 Jan;53(1):18-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2024.10.002. Epub 2024 Oct 26.
This study evaluates the quality and readability of informed consent documents generated by AI platforms ChatGPT-4 and Bard Gemini Advanced compared to those written by a first-year oral surgery resident for common oral surgery procedures. The evaluation, conducted by 18 experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeons, assessed consents for accuracy, completeness, readability, and overall quality. ChatGPT-4 consistently outperformed both Bard and human-written consents. ChatGPT-4 consents had a median accuracy score of 4 [IQR 4-4], compared to Bard's 3 [IQR 3-4] and human's 4 [IQR 3-4]. Completeness scores were higher for ChatGPT-4 (4 [IQR 4-5]) than Bard (3 [IQR 3-4]) and human (4 [IQR 3-4]). Readability was also superior for ChatGPT-4, with a median score of 4 [IQR 4-5] compared to Bard and human consents, both at 4 [IQR 4-4] and 4 [IQR 3-4], respectively. The Gunning Fog Index for ChatGPT-4 was 17.2 [IQR 16.5-18.2], better than Bard's 23.1 [IQR 20.5-24.7] and the human consents' 20 [IQR 19.2-20.9]. Overall, ChatGPT-4's consents received the highest quality ratings, underscoring AI's potential in enhancing patient communication and the informed consent process. The study suggests AI can reduce misinformation risks and improve patient understanding, but continuous evaluation, oversight, and patient feedback integration are crucial to ensure the effectiveness and appropriateness of AI-generated content in clinical practice.
本研究评估了人工智能平台ChatGPT-4和Bard Gemini Advanced生成的知情同意书与一名口腔外科一年级住院医师撰写的常见口腔外科手术知情同意书相比的质量和可读性。由18名经验丰富的口腔颌面外科医生进行的评估，对同意书的准确性、完整性、可读性和整体质量进行了评估。ChatGPT-4的表现始终优于Bard和人工撰写的同意书。ChatGPT-4同意书的中位准确性得分为4[四分位距4-4]，而Bard为3[四分位距3-4]，人工为4[四分位距3-4]。ChatGPT-4的完整性得分（4[四分位距4-5]）高于Bard（3[四分位距3-4]）和人工（4[四分位距3-4]）。ChatGPT-4的可读性也更优，中位得分为4[四分位距4-5]，而Bard和人工同意书的得分分别为4[四分位距4-4]和4[四分位距3-4]。ChatGPT-4的冈宁雾度指数为17.2[四分位距16.5-18.2]，优于Bard的23.1[四分位距20.5-24.7]和人工同意书的20[四分位距19.2-20.9]。总体而言，ChatGPT-4的同意书获得了最高的质量评级，突出了人工智能在加强患者沟通和知情同意过程中的潜力。该研究表明，人工智能可以降低错误信息风险并提高患者理解，但持续评估、监督和整合患者反馈对于确保人工智能生成的内容在临床实践中的有效性和适用性至关重要。
