Acta cardiologica · 2025
Evaluating the accuracy and readability of ChatGPT-4 responses about cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Coskun Cahit, Cetinkaya Burak
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and readability of ChatGPT-4 responses related to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for patients with heart failure (HF), with the objective of assessing its potential as a patient education tool.
METHODS: The study involved 16 open-ended questions related to CR, developed by two specialists (one cardiologist and one physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist). These questions were submitted to ChatGPT-4, and its responses were evaluated for accuracy and readability. Accuracy was assessed using a 6-point Likert scale, while readability was analysed using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Gunning Fog Index (GFI). Inter-evaluator reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: The mean accuracy score of ChatGPT-4 responses was high (5.25 ± 0.77 and 5.38 ± 0.62 for two raters), with 81.25% of responses rated 5 or above. The readability analysis revealed a median FRE of 59.5, indicating moderate readability, with FKGL at 7.1 and CLI at 11.2. The ICC between the two evaluators was 0.854, indicating good agreement.
CONCLUSION: ChatGPT-4 provided accurate and reliable information on CR for HF patients. Although the readability was slightly above the ideal level, its overall performance suggests potential as a supportive tool in patient education. Further improvements in language simplicity are needed to optimise its usability.
METHODS: The study involved 16 open-ended questions related to CR, developed by two specialists (one cardiologist and one physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist). These questions were submitted to ChatGPT-4, and its responses were evaluated for accuracy and readability. Accuracy was assessed using a 6-point Likert scale, while readability was analysed using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Gunning Fog Index (GFI). Inter-evaluator reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: The mean accuracy score of ChatGPT-4 responses was high (5.25 ± 0.77 and 5.38 ± 0.62 for two raters), with 81.25% of responses rated 5 or above. The readability analysis revealed a median FRE of 59.5, indicating moderate readability, with FKGL at 7.1 and CLI at 11.2. The ICC between the two evaluators was 0.854, indicating good agreement.
CONCLUSION: ChatGPT-4 provided accurate and reliable information on CR for HF patients. Although the readability was slightly above the ideal level, its overall performance suggests potential as a supportive tool in patient education. Further improvements in language simplicity are needed to optimise its usability.