Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear Editor,
We would like to share ideas on the publication “ChatGPT and most frequent urological diseases: analysing the quality of information and potential risks for patients [1].” The purpose of the study was to evaluate the quality of information provided by the artificial intelligence software ChatGPT on various urological diseases and treatments. Two urologists used the DISCERN questionnaire and a brief instrument to evaluate the quality of informed consent forms to examine the replies. ChatGPT presented well-balanced information, including explanations of anatomical location, affected demographics, symptoms, risk factors, and treatment options. The quality of therapy responses was moderate, with a DISCERN score of 3 out of 5 points. Except for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), all illnesses had a DISCERN score of 4.
The study makes no comparisons between ChatGPT information and other sources of information, such as medical literature or expert opinions. It is difficult to establish whether the information provided by ChatGPT is credible and accurate without a comparison. The DISCERN questionnaire, which focuses on the quality of treatment information, is the primary source of data for the study. However, other dimensions of information quality, such as currency, comprehensiveness, and correctness, may be underappreciated. The study focuses on the quality of information from the perspective of a medical practitioner but does not analyze the usability or comprehension of the material for patients. A more comprehensive examination would include patient viewpoints and their knowledge of the presented material.
If human review is possible, sensitive content should not be produced, modified, or authorized by AI [2]. On ChatGPT, you can learn a lot about problems and solutions. The ChatGPT results show that some of these datasets may contain erroneous assumptions or perspectives. As a result, patients may obtain inaccurate or misleading information. Before proceeding, consider the moral implications of employing AI and chatbots in academic settings. The necessity for expert AI system development and human oversight is not the least crucial prerequisite. Artificial intelligence systems must be continuously developed, tested, and monitored to reduce errors, biases, and potential risks.
References
Szczesniewski JJ, Tellez Fouz C, Ramos Alba A, Diaz Goizueta FJ, García Tello A, Llanes González L (2023) ChatGPT and most frequent urological diseases: analysing the quality of information and potential risks for patients. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04563-0. (Online ahead of print)
Kleebayoon A, Wiwanitkit V (2023) Artificial intelligence, Chatbots, Plagiarism and basic honesty: comment. Cell Mol Bioeng 16(2):173–174
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AK: ideas, manuscript writing, approval for submission. VW: ideas, supervision, approval for submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
No.
Informed consent
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kleebayoon, A., Wiwanitkit, V. ChatGPT and most frequent urological diseases: comment. World J Urol 41, 3387 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04618-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04618-2