Conformity of ChatGPT recommendations with the AUA/SUFU guideline on postprostatectomy urinary incontinence

Author:

Pinto Vicktor B. P.1ORCID,de Azevedo Matheus F.1,Wroclawski Marcelo L.234,Gentile Guilherme1,Jesus Vinicius L. M.1,de Bessa Junior Jose5ORCID,Nahas William C.1,Sacomani Carlos A. R.6,Sandhu Jaspreet S.7,Gomes Cristiano M.1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Division of Urology University of Sao Paulo School of Medicine Sao Paulo Brazil

2. Division of Urology ABC Medical School Sao Paulo Brazil

3. Department of Urology Albert Einstein Jewish Hospital Sao Paulo Brazil

4. Department of Urologic Oncology BP—a Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo Sao Paulo Brazil

5. Department of Surgery State University of Feira de Santana Bahia Brazil

6. Innovation and Information Technology Sector AC Camargo Cancer Hospital Sao Paulo Brazil

7. Department of Surgery/Urology Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York New York USA

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionArtificial intelligence (AI) shows immense potential in medicine and Chat generative pretrained transformer (ChatGPT) has been used for different purposes in the field. However, it may not match the complexity and nuance of certain medical scenarios. This study evaluates the accuracy of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 in providing recommendations regarding the management of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI), considering The Incontinence After Prostate Treatment: AUA/SUFU Guideline as the best practice benchmark.Materials and MethodsA set of questions based on the AUA/SUFU Guideline was prepared. Queries included 10 conceptual questions and 10 case‐based questions. All questions were open and entered into the ChatGPT with a recommendation to limit the answer to 200 words, for greater objectivity. Responses were graded as correct (1 point); partially correct (0.5 point), or incorrect (0 point). Performances of versions 3.5 and 4 of ChatGPT were analyzed overall and separately for the conceptual and the case‐based questions.ResultsChatGPT 3.5 scored 11.5 out of 20 points (57.5% accuracy), while ChatGPT 4 scored 18 (90.0%; p = 0.031). In the conceptual questions, ChatGPT 3.5 provided accurate answers to six questions along with one partially correct response and three incorrect answers, with a final score of 6.5. In contrast, ChatGPT 4 provided correct answers to eight questions and partially correct answers to two questions, scoring 9.0. In the case‐based questions, ChatGPT 3.5 scored 5.0, while ChatGPT 4 scored 9.0. The domains where ChatGPT performed worst were evaluation, treatment options, surgical complications, and special situations.ConclusionChatGPT 4 demonstrated superior performance compared to ChatGPT 3.5 in providing recommendations for the management of PPUI, using the AUA/SUFU Guideline as a benchmark. Continuous monitoring is essential for evaluating the development and precision of AI‐generated medical information.

Publisher

Wiley

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3