• 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对常见活体肾捐赠问题的回答的准确性、清晰度和全面性。

Accuracy, Clarity, and Comprehensiveness of ChatGPT Outputs for Commonly Asked Questions About Living Kidney Donation.

作者信息

Singla Ria, Lodhi Sumiya, Kibret Taddele, Jegatheswaran Januvi, Glavinovic Tamara, Massicotte-Azarniouch David, Karpinski Jolanta, Powell Rinu, Burns Kevin, Sood Manish M, Bugeja Ann

机构信息

Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Clin Transplant. 2025 Sep;39(9):e70303. doi: 10.1111/ctr.70303.

DOI:10.1111/ctr.70303
PMID:40891338
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12402969/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of ChatGPT responses to common living kidney donation (LKD) queries remains unclear.

METHODS

We surveyed nephrologists and living kidney donors/candidates to evaluate ChatGPT-3.5's accuracy, comprehensiveness, and clarity in answering common donation questions in English and French. Ratings used a 5-point Likert scale, with percentage agreement and modified Fleiss' Kappa measuring inter-rater consistency.

RESULTS

The evaluation of ChatGPT-3.5's responses varied between nephrologists and kidney donors/candidates. Nephrologists showed moderate percentage agreement for English responses (50%-59%) and poor agreement for French responses (9%-45%). Kidney donors/candidates exhibited high agreement for English (90%-100%) but low for French (0%-77%). Inter-rater agreement among nephrologists was moderate for both English (Kappa 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.79, p < 0.0001) and French (Kappa 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.77, p < 0.0001). In contrast, inter-rater agreement was poor among donors/candidates for both English (Kappa -0.10, 95% CI: -0.14, -0.07, p = 0.99) and French (Kappa -0.03, 95% CI: -0.07, 0, p = 0.81).

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT 3.5's responses to common LKD queries demonstrated limited agreement among nephrologists and kidney donors/donor candidates, highlighting its lack of reliability as a supplement to existing educational materials for living kidney donor programs in English and French.

摘要

引言

ChatGPT对常见活体肾捐赠(LKD)问题的回答效果尚不清楚。

方法

我们对肾病学家以及活体肾捐赠者/候选者进行了调查,以评估ChatGPT-3.5在以英语和法语回答常见捐赠问题时的准确性、全面性和清晰度。评分采用5分制李克特量表,用百分比一致性和修正的弗莱斯kappa系数来衡量评分者间的一致性。

结果

肾病学家和肾捐赠者/候选者对ChatGPT-3.5回答的评价存在差异。肾病学家对英语回答的百分比一致性中等(50%-59%),对法语回答的一致性较差(9%-45%)。肾捐赠者/候选者对英语回答的一致性较高(90%-100%),但对法语回答的一致性较低(0%-77%)。肾病学家之间,英语(kappa系数0.74,95%置信区间:0.67,0.79,p<0.0001)和法语(kappa系数0.70,95%置信区间:0.64,0.77,p<0.0001)的评分者间一致性均为中等。相比之下,捐赠者/候选者之间,英语(kappa系数-0.10,95%置信区间:-0.14,-0.07,p=0.99)和法语(kappa系数-0.03,95%置信区间:-0.07,0,p=0.81)的评分者间一致性均较差。

结论

ChatGPT 3.5对常见LKD问题的回答在肾病学家和肾捐赠者/候选者之间显示出有限的一致性,突出了其作为英语和法语活体肾捐赠项目现有教育材料补充的可靠性不足。

相似文献

1
Accuracy, Clarity, and Comprehensiveness of ChatGPT Outputs for Commonly Asked Questions About Living Kidney Donation.ChatGPT对常见活体肾捐赠问题的回答的准确性、清晰度和全面性。
Clin Transplant. 2025 Sep;39(9):e70303. doi: 10.1111/ctr.70303.
2
Evaluating DeepResearch and DeepThink in anterior cruciate ligament surgery patient education: ChatGPT-4o excels in comprehensiveness, DeepSeek R1 leads in clarity and readability of orthopaedic information.评估DeepResearch和DeepThink在前交叉韧带手术患者教育中的作用:ChatGPT-4o在全面性方面表现出色,DeepSeek R1在骨科信息的清晰度和可读性方面领先。
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2025 Jun 1. doi: 10.1002/ksa.12711.
3
Expert evaluation of ChatGPT accuracy and reliability for basic celiac disease frequently asked questions.针对乳糜泻基本常见问题,对ChatGPT准确性和可靠性的专家评估。
Sci Rep. 2025 Aug 14;15(1):29871. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-15898-6.
4
Evaluation of ChatGPT-4 as an Online Outpatient Assistant in Puerperal Mastitis Management: Content Analysis of an Observational Study.评估ChatGPT-4作为产褥期乳腺炎管理在线门诊助手的效果:一项观察性研究的内容分析
JMIR Med Inform. 2025 Jul 24;13:e68980. doi: 10.2196/68980.
5
Battle of the artificial intelligence: a comprehensive comparative analysis of DeepSeek and ChatGPT for urinary incontinence-related questions.人工智能之战:针对尿失禁相关问题对DeepSeek和ChatGPT的全面比较分析
Front Public Health. 2025 Jul 23;13:1605908. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1605908. eCollection 2025.
6
Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Pediatric Emergencies: A Reliable Lifeline or a Risk?儿科急诊中的人工智能聊天机器人:可靠的生命线还是风险?
Cureus. 2025 Aug 1;17(8):e89234. doi: 10.7759/cureus.89234. eCollection 2025 Aug.
7
How Accurate Is AI? A Critical Evaluation of Commonly Used Large Language Models in Responding to Patient Concerns About Incidental Kidney Tumors.人工智能的准确性如何?对常用大语言模型回应患者对偶然发现的肾肿瘤担忧的批判性评估。
J Clin Med. 2025 Aug 12;14(16):5697. doi: 10.3390/jcm14165697.
8
Pharmacy meets AI: Effect of a drug information activity on student perceptions of generative artificial intelligence.药学与人工智能相遇:药物信息活动对学生对生成式人工智能认知的影响。
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2025 Jul 7;17(10):102439. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2025.102439.
9
Optimizing patient education for radioactive iodine therapy and the role of ChatGPT incorporating chain-of-thought technique: ChatGPT questionnaire.优化放射性碘治疗的患者教育以及结合思维链技术的ChatGPT的作用:ChatGPT问卷
Digit Health. 2025 Jul 7;11:20552076251357468. doi: 10.1177/20552076251357468. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
10
Evaluating the novel role of ChatGPT-4 in addressing corneal ulcer queries: An AI-powered insight.评估ChatGPT-4在解答角膜溃疡相关问题方面的新作用:基于人工智能的见解。
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2025 Apr 28:11206721251337290. doi: 10.1177/11206721251337290.

本文引用的文献

1
Performance assessment of ChatGPT 4, ChatGPT 3.5, Gemini Advanced Pro 1.5 and Bard 2.0 to problem solving in pathology in French language.ChatGPT 4、ChatGPT 3.5、Gemini Advanced Pro 1.5和Bard 2.0解决法语病理学问题的性能评估。
Digit Health. 2025 Jan 31;11:20552076241310630. doi: 10.1177/20552076241310630. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
2
"Doctor ChatGPT, Can You Help Me?" The Patient's Perspective: Cross-Sectional Study.“医生 ChatGPT,你能帮我吗?”患者视角:横断面研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Oct 1;26:e58831. doi: 10.2196/58831.
3
Perceptions of ChatGPT in healthcare: usefulness, trust, and risk.医疗保健领域对 ChatGPT 的认知:实用性、信任度和风险。
Front Public Health. 2024 Sep 13;12:1457131. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1457131. eCollection 2024.
4
Evaluating the scientific reliability of ChatGPT as a source of information on asthma.评估ChatGPT作为哮喘信息来源的科学可靠性。
J Allergy Clin Immunol Glob. 2024 Aug 28;3(4):100330. doi: 10.1016/j.jacig.2024.100330. eCollection 2024 Nov.
5
Characterizing the Adoption and Experiences of Users of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Health Information in the United States: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.描述美国人工智能生成健康信息用户的采用和体验:横断面问卷调查研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Aug 14;26:e55138. doi: 10.2196/55138.
6
Relevance of ChatGPT's Responses to Common Hypertension-Related Patient Inquiries.ChatGPT对常见高血压相关患者咨询的回复的相关性。
Hypertension. 2024 Jan;81(1):e1-e4. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.123.22084. Epub 2023 Nov 2.
7
Performance of ChatGPT on Nephrology Test Questions.ChatGPT 在肾病学试题上的表现。
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2024 Jan 1;19(1):35-43. doi: 10.2215/CJN.0000000000000330. Epub 2023 Oct 18.
8
ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence in Transplantation Research: Is It Always Correct?移植研究中的ChatGPT与人工智能:它总是正确的吗?
Cureus. 2023 Jul 19;15(7):e42150. doi: 10.7759/cureus.42150. eCollection 2023 Jul.
9
Assessing ChatGPT Responses to Common Patient Questions Regarding Total Hip Arthroplasty.评估 ChatGPT 对全髋关节置换术常见患者问题的回答。
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2023 Oct 4;105(19):1519-1526. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.23.00209. Epub 2023 Jul 17.
10
Quality of ChatGPT Responses to Questions Related To Liver Transplantation.ChatGPT对肝移植相关问题的回答质量。
J Gastrointest Surg. 2023 Aug;27(8):1716-1719. doi: 10.1007/s11605-023-05714-9. Epub 2023 May 30.