背景:为了评估准确性,可靠性,质量,ChatGPT-3.5,ChatGPT-4,双子座,和副驾驶与正畸透明矫正器有关。
方法:使用Google搜索工具确定了患者/外行人对网站上清晰对齐器的常见问题,这些问题分别提交给ChatGPT-3.5,ChatGPT-4,Gemini,和CopilotAI模型。使用五点李克特量表评估反应的准确性,改进的可靠性评估量表,质量全球质量量表(GQS),和Flesch阅读轻松评分(FRES)的可读性。
结果:ChatGPT-4反应具有最高的平均李克特得分(4.5±0.61),其次是Copilot(4.35±0.81),ChatGPT-3.5(4.15±0.75)和双子(4.1±0.72)。聊天机器人模型的Likert评分之间的差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。副驾驶的DISCERN和GQS评分明显高于双子座,ChatGPT-4和ChatGPT-3.5(p<0.05)。双子座改良DISCERN和GQS评分明显高于ChatGPT-3.5(p<0.05)。与ChatGPT-4、Copilot和ChatGPT-3.5相比,双子座也具有显著更高的FRES(p<0.05)。ChatGPT-3.5的平均FRES为38.39±11.56,ChatGPT-4的平均FRES为43.88±10.13,副驾驶的平均FRES为41.72±10.74,表明根据阅读水平难以阅读的回答。双子座的平均FRES为54.12±10.27,表明双子座的响应比其他聊天机器人更具可读性。
结论:提供的所有聊天机器人模型通常都是准确的,中等可靠和中等到良好的质量回答有关明确的对准器的问题。此外,回答的可读性很难。ChatGPT,双子座和Copilot作为正畸患者信息工具具有巨大的潜力,然而,为了充分有效,它们需要补充更多基于证据的信息和提高的可读性。
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the accuracy, reliability, quality, and readability of responses generated by ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot in relation to orthodontic clear aligners.
METHODS: Frequently asked questions by patients/laypersons about clear aligners on websites were identified using the Google search tool and these questions were posed to ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot AI models. Responses were assessed using a five-point Likert scale for accuracy, the modified DISCERN scale for reliability, the Global Quality Scale (GQS) for quality, and the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) for readability.
RESULTS: ChatGPT-4 responses had the highest mean Likert score (4.5 ± 0.61), followed by Copilot (4.35 ± 0.81), ChatGPT-3.5 (4.15 ± 0.75) and Gemini (4.1 ± 0.72). The difference between the Likert scores of the chatbot models was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Copilot had a significantly higher modified DISCERN and GQS score compared to both Gemini, ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). Gemini\'s modified DISCERN and GQS score was statistically higher than ChatGPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). Gemini also had a significantly higher FRES compared to both ChatGPT-4, Copilot and ChatGPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). The mean FRES was 38.39 ± 11.56 for ChatGPT-3.5, 43.88 ± 10.13 for ChatGPT-4 and 41.72 ± 10.74 for Copilot, indicating that the responses were difficult to read according to the reading level. The mean FRES for Gemini is 54.12 ± 10.27, indicating that Gemini\'s responses are more readable than other chatbots.
CONCLUSIONS: All chatbot models provided generally accurate, moderate reliable and moderate to good quality answers to questions about the clear aligners. Furthermore, the readability of the responses was difficult. ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot have significant potential as patient information tools in orthodontics, however, to be fully effective they need to be supplemented with more evidence-based information and improved readability.