Using Large Language Models to Generate Educational Materials on Childhood Glaucoma

被引:3
|
作者
Dihan, Qais [1 ,2 ]
Chauhan, Muhammad z. [2 ]
Eleiwa, Taher k. [3 ]
Hassan, Amr k. [4 ]
Sallam, Ahmed b. [2 ,5 ]
Khouri, Albert s. [6 ]
Chang, Ta c. [7 ]
Elhusseiny, Abdelrahman m. [2 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Chicago Med Sch, Dept Med, N Chicago, IL USA
[2] Univ Arkansas Med Sci, Harvey & Bernice Jones Eye Inst, Dept Ophthalmol, Little Rock, AR USA
[3] Univ Arkansas Med Sci, Harvey & Bernice Jones Eye Inst, Benha, AR USA
[4] South Valley Univ, Fac Med, Dept Ophthalmol, Qena, Egypt
[5] Ain Shams Univ, Fac Med, Dept Ophthalmol, Cairo, Egypt
[6] Rutgers New Jersey Med Sch, Inst Ophthalmol & Visual Sci ASK, Newark, NJ USA
[7] Univ Miami, Bascom Palmer Eye Inst, Dept Ophthalmol, Miller Sch Med, Miami, FL USA
[8] Harvard Med Sch, Boston Childrens Hosp, Dept Ophthalmol, Boston, MA USA
关键词
FOLLOW-UP; READABILITY; INFORMATION; ADHERENCE; BARRIERS; QUALITY; CARE;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajo.2024.04.004
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate the quality, readability, and accuracy of large language model (LLM)-generated patient education materials (PEMs) on childhood glaucoma, and their ability to improve existing the readability of online information. Design: Cross-sectional comparative study. Methods: We evaluated responses of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Bard to 3 separate prompts requesting that they write PEMs on "childhood glaucoma." Prompt A required PEMs be "easily understandable by the average American." Prompt B required that PEMs be written "at a 6th-grade level using Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula." We then compared responses' quality (DISCERN questionnaire, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool [PEMAT]), readability (SMOG, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level [FKGL]), and accuracy (Likert Misinformation scale). To assess the improvement of readability for existing online information, Prompt C requested that LLM rewrite 20 resources from a Google search of keyword "childhood glaucoma" to the American Medical Association-recommended "6th-grade level." Rewrites were compared on key metrics such as readability, complex words (>= 3 syllables), and sentence count. Results: All 3 LLMs generated PEMs that were of high quality, understandability, and accuracy (DISCERN >= 4, >= 70% PEMAT understandability, Misinformation score = 1). Prompt B responses were more readable than Prompt A responses for all 3 LLM (P <= .001). ChatGPT-4 generated the most readable PEMs compared to ChatGPT-3.5 and Bard (P <= .001). Although Prompt C responses showed consistent reduction of mean SMOG and FKGL scores, only ChatGPT-4 achieved the specified 6th-grade reading level (4.8 +/- 0.8 and 3.7 +/- 1.9, respectively). Conclusions:<bold> </bold>LLMs can serve as strong supplemental tools in generating high-quality, accurate, and novel PEMs, and improving the readability of existing PEMs on childhood glaucoma.
引用
收藏
页码:28 / 38
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Large language models generate functional protein sequences across diverse families
    Madani, Ali
    Ben Krause, Ben
    Greene, Eric R.
    Subramanian, Subu
    Mohr, Benjamin P.
    Holton, James M.
    Olmos, Jose Luis
    Xiong, Caiming
    Sun, Zachary Z. Z.
    Socher, Richard
    Fraser, James S.
    Naik, Nikhil
    NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2023, 41 (08) : 1099 - +
  • [32] Applications of natural language processing and large language models in materials discovery
    Jiang, Xue
    Wang, Weiren
    Tian, Shaohan
    Wang, Hao
    Lookman, Turab
    Su, Yanjing
    NPJ COMPUTATIONAL MATERIALS, 2025, 11 (01)
  • [33] Using large language models in psychology
    Demszky, Dorottya
    Yang, Diyi
    Yeager, David
    Bryan, Christopher
    Clapper, Margarett
    Chandhok, Susannah
    Eichstaedt, Johannes
    Hecht, Cameron
    Jamieson, Jeremy
    Johnson, Meghann
    Jones, Michaela
    Krettek-Cobb, Danielle
    Lai, Leslie
    Jonesmitchell, Nirel
    Ong, Desmond
    Dweck, Carol
    Gross, James
    Pennebaker, James
    NATURE REVIEWS PSYCHOLOGY, 2023, 2 (11): : 688 - 701
  • [34] Using large language models in psychology
    Dorottya Demszky
    Diyi Yang
    David S. Yeager
    Christopher J. Bryan
    Margarett Clapper
    Susannah Chandhok
    Johannes C. Eichstaedt
    Cameron Hecht
    Jeremy Jamieson
    Meghann Johnson
    Michaela Jones
    Danielle Krettek-Cobb
    Leslie Lai
    Nirel JonesMitchell
    Desmond C. Ong
    Carol S. Dweck
    James J. Gross
    James W. Pennebaker
    Nature Reviews Psychology, 2023, 2 : 688 - 701
  • [35] Using large language models wisely
    不详
    NATURE ASTRONOMY, 2025, 9 (03): : 315 - 315
  • [36] Exploring large language models for microstructure evolution in materials
    Satpute, Prathamesh
    Tiwari, Saurabh
    Gupta, Maneet
    Ghosh, Supriyo
    MATERIALS TODAY COMMUNICATIONS, 2024, 40
  • [37] Materials science in the era of large language models: a perspective
    Lei, Ge
    Docherty, Ronan
    Cooper, Samuel J.
    DIGITAL DISCOVERY, 2024, 3 (07): : 1257 - 1272
  • [38] Using artificial intelligence to generate medical literature for urology patients: a comparison of three different large language models
    Pompili, David
    Richa, Yasmina
    Collins, Patrick
    Richards, Helen
    Hennessey, Derek B.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2024, 42 (01)
  • [39] Future Prospects of Large Language Models: Enabling Natural Language Processing in Educational Robotics
    Vinoth Kumar, S.
    Saroo Raj, R.B.
    Praveenchandar, J.
    Vidhya, S.
    Karthick, S.
    Madhubala, R.
    International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 2024, 18 (23) : 85 - 97
  • [40] Less Likely Brainstorming: Using Language Models to Generate Alternative Hypotheses
    Tang, Liyan
    Peng, Yifan
    Wang, Yanshan
    Ding, Ying
    Durrett, Greg
    Rousseau, Justin F.
    FINDINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS (ACL 2023), 2023, : 12532 - 12555