Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38705894›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024

The utility of ChatGPT as a generative medical translator.

David R Grimm, Yu-Jin Lee, Katherine Hu, Longsha Liu, Omar Garcia, Karthik Balakrishnan, Noel F Ayoub

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

David R GrimmDivision of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7422-4280
Yu-Jin LeeDivision of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Katherine HuDivision of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Longsha LiuDivision of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Omar GarciaDivision of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Karthik BalakrishnanDivision of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Noel F AyoubDivision of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. noelayoub@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLarge language models continue to dramatically change the medical landscape. We aimed to explore the utility of ChatGPT in providing accurate, actionable, and understandable generative medical translations in English, Spanish, and Mandarin pertaining to Otolaryngology.

methodsResponses of GPT-4 to commonly asked patient questions listed on official otolaryngology clinical practice guidelines (CPG) were evaluated with the Patient Education materials Assessment Tool-printable (PEMAT-P.) Additional critical elements were identified a priori to evaluate ChatGPT's accuracy and thoroughness in its responses. Multiple fluent speakers of English, Mandarin, and Spanish evaluated each response generated by ChatGPT.

resultsTotal PEMAT-P scores differed between English, Mandarin, and Spanish GPT-4 generated responses depicting a moderate effect size of language, Eta-Square 0.07 with scores ranging from 73 to 77 (P-value = 0.03). Overall understandability scores did not differ between English, Mandarin, and Spanish depicting a small effect size of language, Eta-Square 0.02 scores ranging from 76 to 79 (P-value = 0.17), nor did overall actionability scores Eta-Square 0 score ranging 66-73 (P-value = 0.44). Overall a priori procedure-specific responses similarly did not differ between English, Spanish, and Mandarin Eta-Square 0.02 scores ranging 61-78 (P-value = 0.22).

conclusionGPT-4 produces accurate, understandable, and actionable outputs in English, Spanish, and Mandarin. Responses generated by GPT-4 in Spanish and Mandarin are comparable to English counterparts indicating a novel use for these models within Otolaryngology, and implications for bridging healthcare access and literacy gaps. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Indexed as

OtolaryngologyComprehensionHumansLanguagePatient Education as TopicTranslatingTranslationsArtificial intelligenceDisparitiesLarge language models

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.