PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 30, 2024Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics11 citations

Evaluating Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer Responses to Common Pediatric In-toeing Questions

View Full Paper
JAJason Zarahi AmaralRSRebecca J. SchultzBMBenjamin M. Martin

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Objective: Chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) has garnered attention in health care for its potential to reshape patient interactions. As patients increasingly rely on artificial intelligence platforms, concerns about information accuracy arise. In-toeing, a common lower extremity variation, often leads to pediatric orthopaedic referrals despite observation being the primary treatment. Our study aims to assess ChatGPT’s responses to pediatric in-toeing questions, contributing to discussions on health care innovation and technology in patient education. Methods: We compiled a list of 34 common in-toeing questions from the “Frequently Asked Questions” sections of 9 health care–affiliated websites, identifying 25 as the most encountered. On January 17, 2024, we queried ChatGPT 3.5 in separate sessions and recorded the responses. These 25 questions were posed again on January 21, 2024, to assess its reproducibility. Two pediatric orthopaedic surgeons evaluated responses using a scale of “excellent (no clarification)” to “unsatisfactory (substantial clarification).” Average ratings were used when evaluators’ grades were within one level of each other. In discordant cases, the senior author provided a decisive rating. Results: We found 46% of ChatGPT responses were “excellent” and 44% “satisfactory (minimal clarification).” In addition, 8% of cases were “satisfactory (moderate clarification)” and 2% were “unsatisfactory.” Questions had appropriate readability, with an average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 4.9 (±2.1). However, ChatGPT’s responses were at a collegiate level, averaging 12.7 (±1.4). No significant differences in ratings were observed between question topics. Furthermore, ChatGPT exhibited moderate consistency after repeated queries, evidenced by a Spearman rho coefficient of 0.55 ( P = 0.005). The chatbot appropriately described in-toeing as normal or spontaneously resolving in 62% of responses and consistently recommended evaluation by a health care provider in 100%. Conclusion: The chatbot presented a serviceable, though not perfect, representation of the diagnosis and management of pediatric in-toeing while demonstrating a moderate level of reproducibility in its responses. ChatGPT’s utility could be enhanced by improving readability and consistency and incorporating evidence-based guidelines. Level of Evidence: Level IV—diagnostic.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Amaral et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e6ca92b6db643587648df2https://doi.org/10.1097/bpo.0000000000002695
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Comparing Physician and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Questions Posted to a Public Social Media Forum2023 · 2,549 citations
  2. 2Using a Google Web Search Analysis to Assess the Utility of ChatGPT in Total Joint Arthroplasty2023 · 99 citations
  3. 3Assessing the performance of ChatGPT in answering questions regarding cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma2023 · 649 citations
  4. 4Evaluating the Feasibility of ChatGPT in Healthcare: An Analysis of Multiple Clinical and Research Scenarios2023 · 1,161 citations
  5. 5Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice2021 · 190 citations