Quantitative Comparison of Chatbots on Common Rhinology Pathologies

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Objectives: Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of chatbots as a source of patient information is critical for providers in the rising artificial intelligence landscape. This study is the first to quantitatively analyze and compare four of the most used chatbots available regarding treatments of common pathologies in rhinology.Methods: The treatment of epistaxis, chronic sinusitis, sinus infection, allergic rhinitis, allergies, and nasal polyps was asked to chatbots ChatGPT, ChatGPT Plus, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing in May 2023. Individual responses were analyzed by reviewers for readability, quality, understandability, and actionability using validated scoring metrics. Accuracy and comprehensiveness were evaluated for each response by two experts in rhinology.Results: ChatGPT, Plus, Bard, and Bing had FRE readability scores of 33.17, 35.93, 46.50, and 46.32, respectively, indicating higher readability for Bard and Bing compared to ChatGPT (p = 0.003, p = 0.008) and Plus (p = 0.025, p = 0.048). ChatGPT, Plus, and Bard had mean DISCERN quality scores of 20.42, 20.89, and 20.61, respectively, which was higher than the score for Bing of 16.97 (p < 0.001). For understandability, ChatGPT and Bing had PEMAT scores of 76.67 and 66.61, respectively, which were lower than both Plus at 92.00 (p < 0.001, p < 0.001) and Bard at 92.67 (p < 0.001, p < 0.001). ChatGPT Plus had an accuracy score of 4.39 which was higher than ChatGPT (3.97, p = 0.118), Bard (3.72, p = 0.002), and Bing (3.19, p < 0.001).Conclusion: On aggregate of the tested domains, our results suggest ChatGPT Plus and Google Bard are currently the most patient‐friendly chatbots for the treatment of common pathologies in rhinology.Level of Evidence: N/A Laryngoscope, 134:4225–4231, 2024

This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit: