Suppr超能文献

ChatGPT、谷歌还是PINK?谁能提供关于早期乳腺癌全身治疗副作用最可靠的信息?

ChatGPT, Google, or PINK? Who Provides the Most Reliable Information on Side Effects of Systemic Therapy for Early Breast Cancer?

作者信息

Lukac Stefan, Griewing Sebastian, Leinert Elena, Dayan Davut, Heitmeir Benedikt, Wallwiener Markus, Janni Wolfgang, Fink Visnja, Ebner Florian

机构信息

Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Ulm, Prittwitzstr. 43, 89075 Ulm, Germany.

Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Marburg, Baldingerstraße, 35043 Marburg, Germany.

出版信息

Clin Pract. 2024 Dec 31;15(1):8. doi: 10.3390/clinpract15010008.

Abstract

The survival in early breast cancer (BC) has been significantly improved thanks to numerous new drugs. Nevertheless, the information about the need for systemic therapy, especially chemotherapy, represents an additional stress factor for patients. A common coping strategy is searching for further information, traditionally via search engines or websites, but artificial intelligence (AI) is also increasingly being used. Who provides the most reliable information is now unclear. : AI in the form of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, Google, and the website of PINK, a provider of a prescription-based mobile health app for patients with BC, were compared to determine the validity of the statements on the five most common side effects of nineteen approved drugs and one drug with pending approval (Ribociclib) for the systemic treatment of BC. For this purpose, the drugs were divided into three groups: chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and endocrine therapy. The reference for the comparison was the prescribing information of the respective drug. A congruence score was calculated for the information on side effects: correct information (2 points), generally appropriate information (1 point), and otherwise no point. The information sources were then compared using a Friedmann test and a Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc test. In the overall comparison, ChatGPT 3.5 received the best score with a congruence of 67.5%, followed by ChatGPT 4.0 with 67.0%, PINK with 59.5%, and with Google 40.0% ( < 0.001). There were also significant differences when comparing the individual subcategories, with the best congruence achieved by PINK (73.3%, = 0.059) in the chemotherapy category, ChatGPT 4.0 (77.5%; < 0.001) in the targeted therapy category, and ChatGPT 3.5 ( = 0.002) in the endocrine therapy category. Artificial intelligence and professional online information websites provide the most reliable information on the possible side effects of the systemic treatment of early breast cancer, but congruence with prescribing information is limited. The medical consultation should still be considered the best source of information.

摘要

由于众多新药的出现,早期乳腺癌(BC)患者的生存率得到了显著提高。然而,关于全身治疗,尤其是化疗必要性的信息,对患者来说是额外的压力因素。一种常见的应对策略是寻找更多信息,传统上是通过搜索引擎或网站,但人工智能(AI)的使用也越来越多。目前尚不清楚谁能提供最可靠的信息。研究人员比较了ChatGPT 3.5和4.0形式的人工智能、谷歌以及一家为BC患者提供基于处方的移动健康应用程序的供应商PINK的网站,以确定关于19种已批准药物和一种待批准药物(瑞博西尼)用于BC全身治疗的五种最常见副作用的陈述的有效性。为此,这些药物被分为三组:化疗、靶向治疗和内分泌治疗。比较的参考依据是各药物的处方信息。计算了关于副作用信息的一致性得分:正确信息(2分)、大致合适的信息(1分),否则不得分。然后使用Friedmann检验和Bonferroni校正的事后检验对信息来源进行比较。在总体比较中,ChatGPT 3.5的得分最高,一致性为67.5%,其次是ChatGPT 4.0,为67.0%,PINK为59.5%,谷歌为40.0%(<0.001)。在比较各个子类别时也存在显著差异,化疗类别中PINK的一致性最高(73.3%,P = 0.059),靶向治疗类别中ChatGPT 4.0的一致性最高(77.5%;P < 0.001),内分泌治疗类别中ChatGPT 3.5的一致性最高(P = 0.002)。人工智能和专业在线信息网站提供了关于早期乳腺癌全身治疗可能副作用的最可靠信息,但与处方信息的一致性有限。医疗咨询仍应被视为最佳信息来源。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/aba6/11764162/8b60641c3fe5/clinpract-15-00008-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验