• 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

生成式人工智能聊天机器人针对分娩硬膜外麻醉常见问题的可读性、质量和准确性:ChatGPT与Bard的比较

Readability, quality and accuracy of generative artificial intelligence chatbots for commonly asked questions about labor epidurals: a comparison of ChatGPT and Bard.

作者信息

Lee D, Brown M, Hammond J, Zakowski M

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, 8700 Beverly Blvd #4209, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90064, United States.

Department of Anesthesiology, 8700 Beverly Blvd #4209, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90064, United States.

出版信息

Int J Obstet Anesth. 2025 Feb;61:104317. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104317. Epub 2024 Dec 20.

DOI:10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104317
PMID:39754839
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Over 90% of pregnant women and 76% expectant fathers search for pregnancy health information. We examined readability, accuracy and quality of answers to common obstetric anesthesia questions from the popular generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots ChatGPT and Bard.

METHODS

Twenty questions for generative AI chatbots were derived from frequently asked questions based on professional society, hospital and consumer websites. ChatGPT and Bard were queried in November 2023. Answers were graded for accuracy by four obstetric anesthesiologists. Quality was measured using Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Print (PEMAT). Readability was measured using six readability indices. Accuracy, quality and readability were compared using independent t-test.

RESULTS

Bard readability scores were high school level, significantly easier than ChatGPT's college level by all scoring metrics (P <0.001). Bard had significantly longer answers (P <0.001), yet with similar accuracy of Bard (85% ± 10) and ChatGPT (87% ± 14) (P=0.5). PEMAT understandability scores were no statistically significantly different (P=0.06). Actionability by PEMAT scores for Bard was significantly higher (22% vs. 9%) than ChatGPT (P=0.007) CONCLUSION: Answers to questions about "labor epidurals" should be accurate, high quality, and easy to read. Bard at high school reading level, was well above the goal 4 to 6 grade level suggested for patient materials. Consumers, health care providers, hospitals and governmental agencies should be aware of the quality of information generated by chatbots. Chatbots should meet the standards for readability and understandability of health-related questions, to aid public understanding and enhance shared decision-making.

摘要

引言

超过90%的孕妇和76%的准父亲会搜索孕期健康信息。我们研究了热门生成式人工智能(AI)聊天机器人ChatGPT和Bard对常见产科麻醉问题的回答的可读性、准确性和质量。

方法

基于专业协会、医院和消费者网站的常见问题,为生成式AI聊天机器人提出了20个问题。2023年11月对ChatGPT和Bard进行了查询。由四名产科麻醉医生对答案的准确性进行评分。使用印刷品患者教育材料评估工具(PEMAT)来衡量质量。使用六个可读性指标来衡量可读性。使用独立t检验比较准确性、质量和可读性。

结果

Bard的可读性分数为高中水平,通过所有评分指标均明显比ChatGPT的大学水平更容易理解(P<0.001)。Bard的答案明显更长(P<0.001),但其准确性与ChatGPT相似(85%±10)和ChatGPT(87%±14)(P=0.5)。PEMAT可理解性分数在统计学上没有显著差异(P=0.06)。Bard的PEMAT分数的可操作性明显高于ChatGPT(22%对9%)(P=0.007)。结论:关于“分娩硬膜外麻醉”问题的答案应该准确、高质量且易于阅读。处于高中阅读水平的Bard,远高于建议的患者材料4至6年级的目标水平。消费者、医疗保健提供者、医院和政府机构应该意识到聊天机器人生成的信息质量。聊天机器人应该满足与健康相关问题的可读性和可理解性标准,以帮助公众理解并加强共同决策。

相似文献

1
Readability, quality and accuracy of generative artificial intelligence chatbots for commonly asked questions about labor epidurals: a comparison of ChatGPT and Bard.生成式人工智能聊天机器人针对分娩硬膜外麻醉常见问题的可读性、质量和准确性:ChatGPT与Bard的比较
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2025 Feb;61:104317. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104317. Epub 2024 Dec 20.
2
Generative artificial intelligence chatbots may provide appropriate informational responses to common vascular surgery questions by patients.生成式人工智能聊天机器人可能会为患者关于常见血管外科问题提供恰当的信息性回复。
Vascular. 2025 Feb;33(1):229-237. doi: 10.1177/17085381241240550. Epub 2024 Mar 18.
3
The promising role of chatbots in keratorefractive surgery patient education.聊天机器人在角膜屈光手术患者教育中的潜在作用。
J Fr Ophtalmol. 2025 Feb;48(2):104381. doi: 10.1016/j.jfo.2024.104381. Epub 2024 Dec 13.
4
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.
5
Artificial intelligence chatbots versus traditional medical resources for patient education on "Labor Epidurals": an evaluation of accuracy, emotional tone, and readability.用于“分娩硬膜外麻醉”患者教育的人工智能聊天机器人与传统医学资源的比较:准确性、情感基调及可读性评估
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2025 Feb;61:104302. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104302. Epub 2024 Nov 26.
6
Assessing the quality and readability of patient education materials on chemotherapy cardiotoxicity from artificial intelligence chatbots: An observational cross-sectional study.评估人工智能聊天机器人提供的关于化疗心脏毒性的患者教育材料的质量和可读性:一项观察性横断面研究。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2025 Apr 11;104(15):e42135. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000042135.
7
Talking technology: exploring chatbots as a tool for cataract patient education.技术漫谈:探索聊天机器人作为白内障患者教育工具的作用
Clin Exp Optom. 2025 Jan;108(1):56-64. doi: 10.1080/08164622.2023.2298812. Epub 2024 Jan 9.
8
Assessment of readability, reliability, and quality of ChatGPT®, BARD®, Gemini®, Copilot®, Perplexity® responses on palliative care.评估 ChatGPT®、BARD®、 Gemini®、Copilot®、Perplexity® 在姑息治疗方面的可读性、可靠性和质量。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Aug 16;103(33):e39305. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000039305.
9
How artificial intelligence can provide information about subdural hematoma: Assessment of readability, reliability, and quality of ChatGPT, BARD, and perplexity responses.人工智能如何提供关于硬膜下血肿的信息:对ChatGPT、BARD和Perplexity回答的可读性、可靠性和质量评估。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 May 3;103(18):e38009. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038009.
10
Artificial Doctors: Performance of Chatbots as a Tool for Patient Education on Keratoconus.人工智能医生:聊天机器人作为圆锥角膜患者教育工具的表现
Eye Contact Lens. 2025 Mar 1;51(3):e112-e116. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000001160. Epub 2024 Dec 31.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison of the readability of ChatGPT and Bard in medical communication: a meta-analysis.ChatGPT与Bard在医学交流中的可读性比较:一项荟萃分析。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2025 Sep 1;25(1):325. doi: 10.1186/s12911-025-03035-2.