Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2026
Proficiency of artificial intelligence in addressing patient frequently asked questions on oral lichen planus.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Zhang Ruijie, Mei Li, Liu Melody, Liong Olivia, Liu Leo, Jiang Lu, Chen Qianming, Polonowita Ajith, Guan Guangzhao
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the proficiency of artificial intelligence (ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek-v3) in responding to frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to oral lichen planus (OLP).
STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-three OLP-related FAQs were adapted from known sources. Responses generated by ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek-v3 were assessed by expert panels across 5 domains: accuracy, comprehensibility, logic, fairness, and simplicity.
RESULTS: DeepSeek-v3 outperformed ChatGPT-4 in comprehensiveness (4.65 ± 0.37 vs 4.04 ± 0.54; P < .001), logic (4.41 ± 0.32 vs 4.03 ± 0.35; P < .001), and fairness (4.34 ± 0.33 vs 4.03 ± 0.27; P < .001). ChatGPT-4 scored higher in simplicity (4.25 ± 0.31 vs 4.04 ± 0.28; P = .034), while DeepSeek-v3 had a modest advantage in accuracy (4.49 ± 0.38 vs 4.22 ± 0.34; P = .025). DeepSeek-v3 performed better in comprehensiveness and logic for "Causes" and "Symptoms," and in accuracy for "Risk & Complications." ChatGPT-4's simplicity was most evident in "Causes" and "Symptoms." In "Treatment & Management," DeepSeek-v3 excelled in logic and comprehensiveness, while ChatGPT-4 showed greater simplicity and occasional accuracy.
CONCLUSION: ChatGPT-4 provides concise, accessible information, whereas DeepSeek-v3 offers broader, more detailed responses. Combining both models may improve patient understanding of OLP.
STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-three OLP-related FAQs were adapted from known sources. Responses generated by ChatGPT-4 and DeepSeek-v3 were assessed by expert panels across 5 domains: accuracy, comprehensibility, logic, fairness, and simplicity.
RESULTS: DeepSeek-v3 outperformed ChatGPT-4 in comprehensiveness (4.65 ± 0.37 vs 4.04 ± 0.54; P < .001), logic (4.41 ± 0.32 vs 4.03 ± 0.35; P < .001), and fairness (4.34 ± 0.33 vs 4.03 ± 0.27; P < .001). ChatGPT-4 scored higher in simplicity (4.25 ± 0.31 vs 4.04 ± 0.28; P = .034), while DeepSeek-v3 had a modest advantage in accuracy (4.49 ± 0.38 vs 4.22 ± 0.34; P = .025). DeepSeek-v3 performed better in comprehensiveness and logic for "Causes" and "Symptoms," and in accuracy for "Risk & Complications." ChatGPT-4's simplicity was most evident in "Causes" and "Symptoms." In "Treatment & Management," DeepSeek-v3 excelled in logic and comprehensiveness, while ChatGPT-4 showed greater simplicity and occasional accuracy.
CONCLUSION: ChatGPT-4 provides concise, accessible information, whereas DeepSeek-v3 offers broader, more detailed responses. Combining both models may improve patient understanding of OLP.