Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
OBJECTIVE: With burgeoning popularity of artificial intelligence-based chatbots, oropharyngeal cancer patients now have access to a novel source of medical information. Because chatbot information is not reviewed by experts, we sought to evaluate an artificial intelligence-based chatbot's oropharyngeal cancer-related information for accuracy. METHODS: Fifteen oropharyngeal cancer-related questions were developed and input into ChatGPT version 3.5. Four physician-graders independently assessed accuracy, comprehensiveness, and similarity to a physician response using 5-point Likert scales. Responses graded lower than three were then critiqued by physician-graders. Critiques were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Readability of responses was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level (FKRGL) scales. RESULTS: Average accuracy, comprehensiveness, and similarity to a physician response scores were 3.88 (SD = 0.99), 3.80 (SD = 1.14), and 3.67 (SD = 1.08), respectively. Posttreatment-related questions were most accurate, comprehensive, and similar to a physician response, followed by treatment-related, then diagnosis-related questions. Posttreatment-related questions scored significantly higher than diagnosis-related questions in all three domains (p < 0.01). Two themes of the physician critiques were identified: suboptimal education value and potential to misinform patients. The mean FRE and FKRGL scores both indicated greater than an 11th grade readability level-higher than the 6th grade level recommended for patients. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT responses may not educate patients to an appropriate degree, could outright misinform them, and read at a more difficult grade level than is recommended for patient material. As oropharyngeal cancer patients represent a vulnerable population facing complex, life-altering diagnoses, and treatments, they should be cautious when consuming chatbot-generated medical information. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 134:2252-2257, 2024.
Davis et al. (Mon,) studied this question.