ข้อมูลจากบทคัดย่อ
ยังไม่มีสรุปภาษาไทยสำหรับระเบียนนี้
ด้านล่างเป็นบทคัดย่อต้นฉบับภาษาอังกฤษจากข้อมูลบรรณานุกรม โปรดตรวจบทความต้นฉบับก่อนอ้างอิง
Background Patients increasingly turn to AI chatbots for medical information, including before complex orthopaedic procedures such as progressive collapsing foot deformity (PCFD) surgery. Whether these tools deliver content of sufficient quality and accessibility for preoperative patient education remains unclear, particularly across competing platforms. This study addressed three questions: (1) Do ChatGPT, Perplexity AI and Google Gemini differ in the accuracy, comprehensiveness and clarity of their responses to PCFD-related patient questions? (2) Do these platforms produce content meeting recommended readability thresholds for patient education? (3) Does the level of agreement among blinded foot and ankle surgeons rating the quality of chatbot responses vary depending on the platform used? Hypothesis The three AI chatbot platforms produce responses of comparable accuracy but differ significantly in readability, with none reaching the recommended readability thresholds for patient education materials. Patients and methods Cross-sectional comparative study. Twenty frequently asked questions regarding PCFD, covering disease understanding, conservative management, surgical planning and postoperative recovery, were submitted verbatim to ChatGPT (GPT-4o mini), Perplexity AI and Google Gemini (free versions, March 25, 2026). The 60 resulting responses were rated by three blinded foot and ankle surgeons on three 5-point Likert scales (accuracy, comprehensiveness, clarity). Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Inter-rater agreement used Kendall’s W; differences between platforms were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons. Results All platforms produced responses rated accurate to very accurate. Perplexity achieved significantly higher accuracy than ChatGPT (p = 0.0003) and higher accuracy and clarity than Gemini (p = 0.0065 and p = 0.0075). No platform reached the recommended FRE ≥ 60 or FKGL ≤ 6 thresholds: median FKGL ranged from 13.1 (ChatGPT) to 21.4 (Perplexity), with ChatGPT producing the most readable and Perplexity the least readable content (p < 0.001). Inter-rater agreement was fair to substantial across platforms, lowest for Perplexity. Discussion AI chatbots produce generally accurate baseline information on PCFD surgery, with Perplexity showing significantly higher expert-rated accuracy and clarity than the other platforms—contrary to our hypothesis of comparable accuracy—while readability remains uniformly inadequate for all platforms, as hypothesized. These tools may serve as a supplementary source of information, but their inadequate readability suggests they are not yet suited to replace tailored, surgeon-led patient education. Level of evidence III; cross-sectional comparative study.
เหตุผลที่อยู่ในฐานติดตาม
ระเบียนนี้ได้รับ Impact Signal 83/100 จากความใหม่ แหล่งเผยแพร่ ความร่วมมือ และสัญญาณในข้อมูลบรรณานุกรม คะแนนนี้ใช้จัดลำดับการติดตาม ไม่ใช่การตัดสินคุณภาพงานวิจัย
ประเด็นที่เกี่ยวข้อง: Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Mobile Health and mHealth Applications · AI in Service Interactions
บทบาทของนักวิจัยและสถาบันไทย
Krit Rachayont · Thammasat University
ข้อจำกัดของข้อมูล
หน้านี้เป็นระเบียนบรรณานุกรมและข้อมูลจากบทคัดย่อ ยังไม่ใช่บทวิเคราะห์ฉบับเต็มหรือการประเมินคุณภาพงานวิจัย ควรตรวจสอบ DOI และเอกสารต้นฉบับก่อนนำไปอ้างอิง