Eye (London, England) · 2025
Chat GPT vs an experienced ophthalmologist: evaluating chatbot writing performance in ophthalmology.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Katz Gabriel, Zloto Ofira, Hostovsky Avner, Huna-Baron Ruth, Ben-Bassat Mizrachi Iris, Burgansky Zvia, Skaat Alon, Vishnevskia-Dai Vicktoria, Fabian Ido Didi, Sagiv Oded, Priel Ayelet, Glicksberg Benjamin S, Klang Eyal
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To examine the abilities of ChatGPT in writing scientific ophthalmology introductions and to compare those abilities to experienced ophthalmologists.
METHODS: OpenAI web interface was utilized to interact with and prompt ChatGPT 4 for generating the introductions for the selected papers. Consequently, each paper had two introductions-one drafted by ChatGPT and the other by the original author. Ten ophthalmology specialists with a minimal experience of more than 15 years, each representing distinct subspecialties-retina, neuro-ophthalmology, oculoplastic, glaucoma, and ocular oncology were provided with the two sets of introductions without revealing the origin (ChatGPT or human author) and were tasked to evaluate the introductions.
RESULTS: For each type of introduction, out of 45 instances, specialists correctly identified the source 26 times (57.7%) and erred 19 times (42.2%). The misclassification rates for introductions were 25% for experts evaluating introductions from their own subspecialty while to 44.4% for experts assessed introductions outside their subspecialty domain. In the comparative evaluation of introductions written by ChatGPT and human authors, no significant difference was identified across the assessed metrics (language, data arrangement, factual accuracy, originality, data Currency). The misclassification rate (the frequency at which reviewers incorrectly identified the authorship) was highest in Oculoplastic (66.7%) and lowest in Retina (11.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT represents a significant advancement in facilitating the creation of original scientific papers in ophthalmology. The introductions generated by ChatGPT showed no statistically significant difference compared to those written by experts in terms of language, data organization, factual accuracy, originality, and the currency of information. In addition, nearly half of them being indistinguishable from the originals. Future research endeavours should explore ChatGPT-4's utility in composing other sections of research papers and delve into the associated ethical considerations.
METHODS: OpenAI web interface was utilized to interact with and prompt ChatGPT 4 for generating the introductions for the selected papers. Consequently, each paper had two introductions-one drafted by ChatGPT and the other by the original author. Ten ophthalmology specialists with a minimal experience of more than 15 years, each representing distinct subspecialties-retina, neuro-ophthalmology, oculoplastic, glaucoma, and ocular oncology were provided with the two sets of introductions without revealing the origin (ChatGPT or human author) and were tasked to evaluate the introductions.
RESULTS: For each type of introduction, out of 45 instances, specialists correctly identified the source 26 times (57.7%) and erred 19 times (42.2%). The misclassification rates for introductions were 25% for experts evaluating introductions from their own subspecialty while to 44.4% for experts assessed introductions outside their subspecialty domain. In the comparative evaluation of introductions written by ChatGPT and human authors, no significant difference was identified across the assessed metrics (language, data arrangement, factual accuracy, originality, data Currency). The misclassification rate (the frequency at which reviewers incorrectly identified the authorship) was highest in Oculoplastic (66.7%) and lowest in Retina (11.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT represents a significant advancement in facilitating the creation of original scientific papers in ophthalmology. The introductions generated by ChatGPT showed no statistically significant difference compared to those written by experts in terms of language, data organization, factual accuracy, originality, and the currency of information. In addition, nearly half of them being indistinguishable from the originals. Future research endeavours should explore ChatGPT-4's utility in composing other sections of research papers and delve into the associated ethical considerations.