Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Evaluating the validity and consistency of artificial intelligence chatbots in responding to patients’ frequently asked questions in prosthodontics
23
Zitationen
7
Autoren
2025
Jahr
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Healthcare-related information provided by artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots may pose challenges such as inaccuracies, lack of empathy, biases, over-reliance, limited scope, and ethical concerns. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the validity and consistency of responses to prosthodontics-related frequently asked questions (FAQ) generated by 4 different chatbot systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four prosthodontics domains were evaluated: implant, fixed prosthodontics, complete denture (CD), and removable partial denture (RPD). Within each domain, 10 questions were prepared by full-time prosthodontic faculty members, and 10 questions were generated by GPT-3.5, representing its top frequently asked questions in each domain. The validity and consistency of responses provided by 4 chatbots: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini, and Bing were evaluated. The chi-squared test with the Yates correction was used to compare the validity of responses between different chatbots (α=.05). The Cronbach alpha was calculated for 3 sets of responses collected in the morning, afternoon, and evening to evaluate the consistency of the responses. RESULTS: According to the low threshold validity test, the chatbots' answers to ChatGPT's implant-related, ChatGPT's RPD-related, and prosthodontists' CD-related FAQs were statistically different (P<.001, P<.001, and P=.004, respectively), with Bing being the lowest. At the high threshold validity test, the chatbots' answers to ChatGPT's implant-related and RPD-related FAQs and ChatGPT's and prosthodontists' fixed prosthetics-related and CD-related FAQs were statistically different (P<.001, P<.001, P=.004, P=.002, and P=.003, respectively), with Bing being the lowest. Overall, all 4 chatbots demonstrated lower validity at the high threshold than the low threshold. Bing, Gemini, and ChatGPT-4 chatbots displayed an acceptable level of consistency, while ChatGPT-3.5 did not. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, AI chatbots show limitations in delivering answers to patients' prosthodontic-related FAQs with high validity and consistency.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.644 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.550 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 8.061 Zit.
BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining
2019 · 6.850 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.781 Zit.