Reliability, Accuracy, and Comprehensibility of AI-Based Responses to Common Patient Questions Regarding Spinal Cord Stimulation

<b>Background:</b> Although spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for managing chronic pain, many patients have understandable questions and concerns regarding this therapy. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise in delivering patient education in healthcare. This study evaluates the reliability, accuracy, and comprehensibility of ChatGPT's responses to common patient inquiries about SCS. <b>Methods:</b> Thirteen commonly asked questions regarding SCS were selected based on the authors' clinical experience managing chronic pain patients and a targeted review of patient education materials and relevant medical literature. The questions were prioritized based on their frequency in patient consultations, relevance to decision-making about SCS, and the complexity of the information typically required to comprehensively address the questions. These questions spanned three domains: pre-procedural, intra-procedural, and post-procedural concerns. Responses were generated using GPT-4.0 with the prompt "<i>If you were a physician, how would you answer a patient asking</i>…". Responses were independently assessed by 10 pain physicians and two non-healthcare professionals using a Likert scale for reliability (1-6 points), accuracy (1-3 points), and comprehensibility (1-3 points). <b>Results:</b> ChatGPT's responses demonstrated strong reliability (5.1 ± 0.7) and comprehensibility (2.8 ± 0.2), with 92% and 98% of responses, respectively, meeting or exceeding our predefined thresholds. Accuracy was 2.7 ± 0.3, with 95% of responses rated sufficiently accurate. General queries, such as "<i>What is spinal cord stimulation</i>?" and "<i>What are the risks and benefits</i>?", received higher scores compared to technical questions like "<i>What are the different types of waveforms used in SCS</i>?". <b>Conclusions:</b> ChatGPT can be implemented as a supplementary tool for patient education, particularly in addressing general and procedural queries about SCS. However, the AI's performance was less robust in addressing highly technical or nuanced questions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2025-02-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14051453
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Pain Management and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
17.53
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reliability, Accuracy, and Comprehensibility of AI-Based Responses to Common Patient Questions Regarding Spinal Cord Stimulation

Marco Cascella, Christopher Louis Robinson, Giuliano Lo Bianco, Leonardo Kapural et al.
8 citations
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Pain Management and Treatment
17.53
article

Reliability, Accuracy, and Comprehensibility of AI-Based Responses to Common Patient Questions Regarding Spinal Cord Stimulation

Marco Cascella, Christopher Louis Robinson, Giuliano Lo Bianco, Leonardo Kapural, Emanuele Sinagra, Sean Li, Miles Day
article en
8 citations

Abstract

<b>Background:</b> Although spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for managing chronic pain, many patients have understandable questions and concerns regarding this therapy. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise in delivering patient education in healthcare. This study evaluates the reliability, accuracy, and comprehensibility of ChatGPT's responses to common patient inquiries about SCS. <b>Methods:</b> Thirteen commonly asked questions regarding SCS were selected based on the authors' clinical experience managing chronic pain patients and a targeted review of patient education materials and relevant medical literature. The questions were prioritized based on their frequency in patient consultations, relevance to decision-making about SCS, and the complexity of the information typically required to comprehensively address the questions. These questions spanned three domains: pre-procedural, intra-procedural, and post-procedural concerns. Responses were generated using GPT-4.0 with the prompt "<i>If you were a physician, how would you answer a patient asking</i>…". Responses were independently assessed by 10 pain physicians and two non-healthcare professionals using a Likert scale for reliability (1-6 points), accuracy (1-3 points), and comprehensibility (1-3 points). <b>Results:</b> ChatGPT's responses demonstrated strong reliability (5.1 ± 0.7) and comprehensibility (2.8 ± 0.2), with 92% and 98% of responses, respectively, meeting or exceeding our predefined thresholds. Accuracy was 2.7 ± 0.3, with 95% of responses rated sufficiently accurate. General queries, such as "<i>What is spinal cord stimulation</i>?" and "<i>What are the risks and benefits</i>?", received higher scores compared to technical questions like "<i>What are the different types of waveforms used in SCS</i>?". <b>Conclusions:</b> ChatGPT can be implemented as a supplementary tool for patient education, particularly in addressing general and procedural queries about SCS. However, the AI's performance was less robust in addressing highly technical or nuanced questions.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 14(5)
Texas Tech University (US), Brigham and Women's Hospital (US), University of Salerno (IT), Harvard University (US), Carolinas Pain Institute (US), Fondazione Istituto G. Giglio di Cefalù (IT), International Spine, Pain & Performance (US), Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Pain Management and Treatment
17.53
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.