Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Worldwide, millions suffer from cataracts, which impair vision and quality of life. Cataract education improves outcomes, satisfaction, and treatment adherence. Lack of health literacy, language and cultural barriers, personal preferences, and limited resources may all impede effective communication.
UNASSIGNED: AI can improve patient education by providing personalised, interactive, and accessible information tailored to patient understanding, interest, and motivation. AI chatbots can have human-like conversations and give advice on numerous topics.
UNASSIGNED: This study investigated the efficacy of chatbots in cataract patient education relative to traditional resources like the AAO website, focusing on information accuracy,understandability, actionability, and readability. A descriptive comparative design was used to analyse quantitative data from frequently asked questions about cataracts answered by ChatGPT, Bard, Bing AI, and the AAO website. SOLO taxonomy, PEMAT, and the Flesch-Kincaid ease score were used to collect and analyse the data.
UNASSIGNED: Chatbots scored higher than AAO website on cataract-related questions in terms of accuracy (mean SOLO score ChatGPT: 3.1 ± 0.31, Bard: 2.9 ± 0.72, Bing AI: 2.65 ± 0.49, AAO website: 2.4 ± 0.6, (p < 0.001)). For understandability (mean PEMAT-U score AAO website: 0,89 ± 0,04, ChatGPT 0,84 ± 0,02, Bard: 0,84 ± 0,02, Bing AI: 0,81 ± 0,02, (p < 0.001)), and actionability (mean PEMAT-A score ChatGPT: 0.86 ± 0.03, Bard: 0.85 ± 0.06, Bing AI: 0.81 ± 0.05, AAO website: 0.81 ± 0.06, (p < 0.001)) AAO website scored better than chatbots. Flesch-Kincaid readability ease analysis showed that Bard (55,5 ± 8,48) had the highest mean score, followed by AAO website (51,96 ± 12,46), Bing AI (41,77 ± 9,53), and ChatGPT (34,38 ± 9,75, (p < 0.001)).
UNASSIGNED: Chatbots have the potential to provide more detailed and accurate data than the AAO website. On the other hand, the AAO website has the advantage of providing information that is more understandable and practical. When patient preferences are not taken into account, generalised or biased information can decrease reliability.
UNASSIGNED: AI can improve patient education by providing personalised, interactive, and accessible information tailored to patient understanding, interest, and motivation. AI chatbots can have human-like conversations and give advice on numerous topics.
UNASSIGNED: This study investigated the efficacy of chatbots in cataract patient education relative to traditional resources like the AAO website, focusing on information accuracy,understandability, actionability, and readability. A descriptive comparative design was used to analyse quantitative data from frequently asked questions about cataracts answered by ChatGPT, Bard, Bing AI, and the AAO website. SOLO taxonomy, PEMAT, and the Flesch-Kincaid ease score were used to collect and analyse the data.
UNASSIGNED: Chatbots scored higher than AAO website on cataract-related questions in terms of accuracy (mean SOLO score ChatGPT: 3.1 ± 0.31, Bard: 2.9 ± 0.72, Bing AI: 2.65 ± 0.49, AAO website: 2.4 ± 0.6, (p < 0.001)). For understandability (mean PEMAT-U score AAO website: 0,89 ± 0,04, ChatGPT 0,84 ± 0,02, Bard: 0,84 ± 0,02, Bing AI: 0,81 ± 0,02, (p < 0.001)), and actionability (mean PEMAT-A score ChatGPT: 0.86 ± 0.03, Bard: 0.85 ± 0.06, Bing AI: 0.81 ± 0.05, AAO website: 0.81 ± 0.06, (p < 0.001)) AAO website scored better than chatbots. Flesch-Kincaid readability ease analysis showed that Bard (55,5 ± 8,48) had the highest mean score, followed by AAO website (51,96 ± 12,46), Bing AI (41,77 ± 9,53), and ChatGPT (34,38 ± 9,75, (p < 0.001)).
UNASSIGNED: Chatbots have the potential to provide more detailed and accurate data than the AAO website. On the other hand, the AAO website has the advantage of providing information that is more understandable and practical. When patient preferences are not taken into account, generalised or biased information can decrease reliability.
摘要：
■全球，数百万人患有白内障，损害视力和生活质量。白内障教育改善结果，满意,和治疗依从性。缺乏健康素养，语言和文化障碍，个人喜好,有限的资源都可能阻碍有效的沟通。
■AI可以通过提供个性化、互动式,和为患者理解量身定制的可访问信息，兴趣,和动机。AI聊天机器人可以进行类似人类的对话，并就许多主题提供建议。
■这项研究调查了聊天机器人在白内障患者教育中相对于AAO网站等传统资源的功效，注重信息准确性，可理解性,可操作性，和可读性。描述性比较设计用于分析ChatGPT回答的有关白内障的常见问题的定量数据，巴德,BingAI,和AAO网站。SOLO分类法，PEMAT,Flesch-Kincaid缓解评分用于收集和分析数据.
■Chatbots在白内障相关问题上的准确性高于AAO网站（平均SOLO评分ChatGPT：3.1±0.31，Bard：2.9±0.72，BingAI：2.65±0.49，AAO网站：2.4±0.6，（p<0.001））。对于可理解性（平均PEMAT-U评分AAO网站：0,89±0,04，ChatGPT0,84±0,02，Bard：0,84±0,02，BingAI：0,81±0,02，（p<0.001）），和可操作性（平均PEMAT-A得分ChatGPT：0.86±0.03，Bard：0.85±0.06，BingAI：0.81±0.05，AAO网站：0.81±0.06，（p<0.001））AAO网站得分优于聊天机器人。Flesch-Kincaid可读性分析显示，Bard(55,5±8,48)的平均得分最高，其次是AAO网站(51,96±12,46)，BingAI(41,77±9,53)，和ChatGPT（34,38±9,75，（p<0.001））。
■聊天机器人有可能提供比AAO网站更详细，更准确的数据。另一方面,AAO网站的优势是提供更易于理解和实用的信息。如果不考虑患者的偏好，泛化或有偏差的信息会降低可靠性。
■AI可以通过提供个性化、互动式,和为患者理解量身定制的可访问信息，兴趣,和动机。AI聊天机器人可以进行类似人类的对话，并就许多主题提供建议。
■这项研究调查了聊天机器人在白内障患者教育中相对于AAO网站等传统资源的功效，注重信息准确性，可理解性,可操作性，和可读性。描述性比较设计用于分析ChatGPT回答的有关白内障的常见问题的定量数据，巴德,BingAI,和AAO网站。SOLO分类法，PEMAT,Flesch-Kincaid缓解评分用于收集和分析数据.
■Chatbots在白内障相关问题上的准确性高于AAO网站（平均SOLO评分ChatGPT：3.1±0.31，Bard：2.9±0.72，BingAI：2.65±0.49，AAO网站：2.4±0.6，（p<0.001））。对于可理解性（平均PEMAT-U评分AAO网站：0,89±0,04，ChatGPT0,84±0,02，Bard：0,84±0,02，BingAI：0,81±0,02，（p<0.001）），和可操作性（平均PEMAT-A得分ChatGPT：0.86±0.03，Bard：0.85±0.06，BingAI：0.81±0.05，AAO网站：0.81±0.06，（p<0.001））AAO网站得分优于聊天机器人。Flesch-Kincaid可读性分析显示，Bard(55,5±8,48)的平均得分最高，其次是AAO网站(51,96±12,46)，BingAI(41,77±9,53)，和ChatGPT（34,38±9,75，（p<0.001））。
■聊天机器人有可能提供比AAO网站更详细，更准确的数据。另一方面,AAO网站的优势是提供更易于理解和实用的信息。如果不考虑患者的偏好，泛化或有偏差的信息会降低可靠性。
