• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

ChatGPT对肺动脉高压相关健康问题的回答的可信度、价值、风险及可读性

Trustworthiness, Value, Danger, and Readability of ChatGPT-Generated Responses to Health Questions Related to Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.

作者信息

Kerkütlüoğlu Murat, Kaya Erhan, Gökmen Rasim

机构信息

Cardiology, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, TUR.

Public Health, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, TUR.

出版信息

Cureus. 2024 Oct 14;16(10):e71472. doi: 10.7759/cureus.71472. eCollection 2024 Oct.

DOI:10.7759/cureus.71472
PMID:39544545
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11560386/
Abstract

AIM

To enhance outcomes for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), comprehensive and individualized therapy is needed. A large language model called Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has the ability to provide expert yet patient-friendly care. We wanted to determine how well ChatGPT could accurately and consistently respond to inquiries on knowledge and management for PAH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

When 20 PAH patients were diagnosed, they were asked what concerns they had about PAH and what they had researched online. In the evaluation, it was determined that patients frequently searched the Internet for answers to eight queries. These eight queries were posed to ChatGPT, and their responses were recorded. Ten experts in the field of PAH assessed the trustworthiness, value, and hazard of the answers generated by the ChatGPT.

RESULTS

According to evaluations conducted by experts, the ChatGPT-generated responses were deemed trustworthy with an average score of 8.4 (7.7-9.2) and valuable with an average score of 7.9 (7.4-8.2). Based on the statistical analysis, it can be inferred that most professionals believed that the utilization of prompts provided by ChatGPT did not present a substantial risk, with a mean of 2.1 (1.7-2.5). The answers were assessed for readability using two different indicators, namely the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). The average FKGL value was determined to be 13.52 ± 2.40, indicating a "difficult" level of readability.

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT provides reliable PAH-related information, but it is important to seek professional medical advice before making any decisions regarding PAH. ChatGPT can only provide general information and support, but a qualified healthcare provider can offer tailored recommendations.

摘要

目的

为改善肺动脉高压(PAH)患者的治疗效果,需要全面且个性化的治疗方法。一种名为生成式预训练变换器(ChatGPT)的大型语言模型有能力提供专业且对患者友好的护理。我们想确定ChatGPT在准确且一致地回答有关PAH知识和管理的询问方面表现如何。

材料与方法

20例PAH患者确诊后,询问他们对PAH的担忧以及在网上搜索的内容。评估发现患者经常在互联网上搜索八个问题的答案。将这八个问题抛给ChatGPT,并记录其回答。10位PAH领域的专家评估了ChatGPT生成答案的可信度、价值和风险。

结果

根据专家评估,ChatGPT生成的回答可信度平均得分为8.4(7.7 - 9.2),被认为是有价值的,平均得分为7.9(7.4 - 8.2)。基于统计分析,可以推断大多数专业人士认为使用ChatGPT提供的提示不存在重大风险,平均值为2.1(1.7 - 2.5)。使用两个不同指标,即弗莱施 - 金凯德年级水平(FKGL)和难词简易衡量法(SMOG)对答案的可读性进行评估。确定平均FKGL值为13.52 ± 2.40,表明可读性为“困难”级别。

结论

ChatGPT提供可靠的PAH相关信息,但在就PAH做出任何决定之前寻求专业医疗建议很重要。ChatGPT只能提供一般信息和支持,但合格的医疗保健提供者可以提供量身定制的建议。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/0620aa9654e9/cureus-0016-00000071472-i10.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/3d4490eb3fd9/cureus-0016-00000071472-i01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/8bef7088c6c9/cureus-0016-00000071472-i02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/73ae41cb88df/cureus-0016-00000071472-i03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/ee4fa86f30b2/cureus-0016-00000071472-i04.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/cdc35c17ca0b/cureus-0016-00000071472-i05.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/75fa5ae77f9c/cureus-0016-00000071472-i06.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/f0a237603656/cureus-0016-00000071472-i07.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/d36c99eba68f/cureus-0016-00000071472-i08.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/e9b23d0b1691/cureus-0016-00000071472-i09.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/0620aa9654e9/cureus-0016-00000071472-i10.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/3d4490eb3fd9/cureus-0016-00000071472-i01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/8bef7088c6c9/cureus-0016-00000071472-i02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/73ae41cb88df/cureus-0016-00000071472-i03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/ee4fa86f30b2/cureus-0016-00000071472-i04.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/cdc35c17ca0b/cureus-0016-00000071472-i05.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/75fa5ae77f9c/cureus-0016-00000071472-i06.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/f0a237603656/cureus-0016-00000071472-i07.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/d36c99eba68f/cureus-0016-00000071472-i08.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/e9b23d0b1691/cureus-0016-00000071472-i09.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e02/11560386/0620aa9654e9/cureus-0016-00000071472-i10.jpg

相似文献

1
Trustworthiness, Value, Danger, and Readability of ChatGPT-Generated Responses to Health Questions Related to Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.ChatGPT对肺动脉高压相关健康问题的回答的可信度、价值、风险及可读性
Cureus. 2024 Oct 14;16(10):e71472. doi: 10.7759/cureus.71472. eCollection 2024 Oct.
2
Appropriateness and readability of Google Bard and ChatGPT-3.5 generated responses for surgical treatment of glaucoma.谷歌巴德和 ChatGPT-3.5 生成的青光眼手术治疗回复的适宜性和可读性。
Rom J Ophthalmol. 2024 Jul-Sep;68(3):243-248. doi: 10.22336/rjo.2024.45.
3
AI-Generated Information for Vascular Patients: Assessing the Standard of Procedure-Specific Information Provided by the ChatGPT AI-Language Model.血管疾病患者的人工智能生成信息:评估ChatGPT人工智能语言模型提供的特定程序信息标准
Cureus. 2023 Nov 30;15(11):e49764. doi: 10.7759/cureus.49764. eCollection 2023 Nov.
4
Accuracy and Readability of Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Vasectomy-Related Questions: Public Beware.人工智能聊天机器人对输精管切除术相关问题回答的准确性和可读性:公众需谨慎。
Cureus. 2024 Aug 28;16(8):e67996. doi: 10.7759/cureus.67996. eCollection 2024 Aug.
5
Is ChatGPT a Reliable Source of Patient Information on Asthma?ChatGPT是哮喘患者信息的可靠来源吗?
Cureus. 2024 Jul 8;16(7):e64114. doi: 10.7759/cureus.64114. eCollection 2024 Jul.
6
Assessing the Readability of Patient Education Materials on Cardiac Catheterization From Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: An Observational Cross-Sectional Study.评估人工智能聊天机器人提供的心脏导管插入术患者教育材料的可读性:一项观察性横断面研究。
Cureus. 2024 Jul 4;16(7):e63865. doi: 10.7759/cureus.63865. eCollection 2024 Jul.
7
Evaluation of the reliability and readability of ChatGPT-4 responses regarding hypothyroidism during pregnancy.评估 ChatGPT-4 在妊娠期间甲状腺功能减退症相关问题的回复的可靠性和可读性。
Sci Rep. 2024 Jan 2;14(1):243. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-50884-w.
8
Both Patients and Plastic Surgeons Prefer Artificial Intelligence-Generated Microsurgical Information.患者和整形外科医生都更喜欢人工智能生成的显微手术信息。
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2024 Nov;40(9):657-664. doi: 10.1055/a-2273-4163. Epub 2024 Feb 21.
9
Evaluation of information accuracy and clarity: ChatGPT responses to the most frequently asked questions about premature ejaculation.信息准确性与清晰度评估:ChatGPT对早泄常见问题的回答
Sex Med. 2024 Jun 2;12(3):qfae036. doi: 10.1093/sexmed/qfae036. eCollection 2024 Jun.
10
Evaluating the Efficacy of ChatGPT as a Patient Education Tool in Prostate Cancer: Multimetric Assessment.评估 ChatGPT 在前列腺癌患者教育中的疗效:多指标评估。
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Aug 14;26:e55939. doi: 10.2196/55939.

引用本文的文献

1
A Heart-to-Heart With ChatGPT: AI Applications in Hypertension.与ChatGPT倾心交谈:人工智能在高血压中的应用
Am J Hypertens. 2025 Aug 14;38(9):621-627. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpaf045.

本文引用的文献

1
Evaluating the Performance of ChatGPT in Ophthalmology: An Analysis of Its Successes and Shortcomings.评估ChatGPT在眼科领域的表现:对其优缺点的分析。
Ophthalmol Sci. 2023 May 5;3(4):100324. doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2023.100324. eCollection 2023 Dec.
2
Analysis of large-language model versus human performance for genetics questions.大语言模型与人类在遗传学问题表现上的分析。
Eur J Hum Genet. 2024 Apr;32(4):466-468. doi: 10.1038/s41431-023-01396-8. Epub 2023 May 29.
3
What if your patient switches from Dr. Google to Dr. ChatGPT? A vignette-based survey of the trustworthiness, value, and danger of ChatGPT-generated responses to health questions.
如果你的患者从谷歌医生转向了 ChatGPT 医生,你会怎么办?基于病例的调查,评估 ChatGPT 生成的健康问题回答的可信度、价值和危险。
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2024 Jan 12;23(1):95-98. doi: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvad038.
4
ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns.ChatGPT在医学教育、研究与实践中的应用:对其前景与合理担忧的系统评价
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Mar 19;11(6):887. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11060887.
5
Assessing the performance of ChatGPT in answering questions regarding cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.评估 ChatGPT 在回答肝硬化和肝细胞癌相关问题方面的表现。
Clin Mol Hepatol. 2023 Jul;29(3):721-732. doi: 10.3350/cmh.2023.0089. Epub 2023 Mar 22.
6
Artificial intelligence chatbots will revolutionize how cancer patients access information: ChatGPT represents a paradigm-shift.人工智能聊天机器人将彻底改变癌症患者获取信息的方式:ChatGPT 代表了一种范式转变。
JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2023 Mar 1;7(2). doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkad010.
7
ChatGPT: can artificial intelligence language models be of value for cardiovascular nurses and allied health professionals.ChatGPT:人工智能语言模型对心血管护士和相关健康专业人员有价值吗?
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2023 Oct 19;22(7):e55-e59. doi: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvad022.
8
Quality and readability of online information on plantar fasciitis and calcaneal spur.足底筋膜炎和跟骨骨刺的在线信息的质量和可读性。
Rheumatol Int. 2022 Nov;42(11):1965-1972. doi: 10.1007/s00296-022-05165-6. Epub 2022 Jun 28.
9
AI-Based Modeling: Techniques, Applications and Research Issues Towards Automation, Intelligent and Smart Systems.基于人工智能的建模:面向自动化、智能和智能系统的技术、应用及研究问题
SN Comput Sci. 2022;3(2):158. doi: 10.1007/s42979-022-01043-x. Epub 2022 Feb 10.
10
Human- versus Artificial Intelligence.人类与人工智能
Front Artif Intell. 2021 Mar 25;4:622364. doi: 10.3389/frai.2021.622364. eCollection 2021.