Home
Abstract
My Abstract(s)
Login
ePosters
Back
Final Presentation Format
Non-Moderated Poster Abstract
Eposter Presentation
Eposter in PDF Format
Accept format: PDF. The file size should not be more than 5MB
Eposter in Image Format
Accept format: PNG/JPG/WEBP. The file size should not be more than 2MB
Presentation Date / Time
Submission Status
Submitted
Abstract
Abstract Title
Are AI models accurate and readable on the topic of kidney cancer?
Presentation Type
Moderated Poster Abstract
Manuscript Type
Clinical Research
Abstract Category *
AI in Urology
Author's Information
Number of Authors (including submitting/presenting author) *
3
No more than 10 authors can be listed (as per the Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines).
Please ensure the authors are listed in the right order.
Country
Australia
Co-author 1
Darcy Noll darcynoll@gmail.com The University of Adelaide School of Medicine Adelaide Australia *
Co-author 2
Peter Stapleton peter.stapleton9@gmail.com The University of Adelaide School of Medicine Adelaide Australia -
Co-author 3
Thomas Milton thomas.milton@sa.gov.au The University of Adelaide School of Medicine Adelaide Australia -
Co-author 4
-
Co-author 5
-
Co-author 6
-
Co-author 7
-
Co-author 8
-
Co-author 9
-
Co-author 10
-
Co-author 11
-
Co-author 12
-
Co-author 13
-
Co-author 14
-
Co-author 15
-
Co-author 16
-
Co-author 17
-
Co-author 18
-
Co-author 19
-
Co-author 20
-
Abstract Content
Introduction
Large language model (LLM) chatbots have rapidly gained popularity in the past 2 years. Significant efforts have been undertaken the evaluate the ability of these LLM’s to provide accurate information to patient about a range of medical conditions. We aim to determine the accuracy and readability of information generated for patients by freely available LLMs regarding kidney cancer
Materials and Methods
The top 10 queries related to kidney cancer worldwide were identified via Google Trends. These queries were posed to 5 freely available LLMs – ChatGPT, Google Gemini, xAI, Perplexity AI and Microsoft Copilot. 2 independent reviewers assessed the LLM replies for accuracy in five categories, employing a 5-point Likert scale. A readability evaluation was conducted utilizing established formulas, including the Flesch reading ease score and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Formula. LLM replies that were graded at college level or above were requested to be simplified and the revised response was then recorded. Responses were compared to patient pamphlets provided by the EAU and AUA.
Results
Responses on average required a higher reading level than the average literacy level of the general public. The average Flesch reading ease score was 40.8, 29.4, 32.1, 28.3 and 29.3 for ChatGPT, Gemini, xAI, Perplexity AI and Copilot respectively. These scores indicate a college level of reading required. When prompted to simplify their responses, reading ease score increased on average by 25.3, 21.3, 14.7, 25.2 and 15.4 points respectively. The LLMs outputs were overall rated as highly accurate. No grossly inaccurate or dangerous statements were identified. Some responses contained partial inaccuracies and minor detail omission.
Conclusions
LLM show promise as an adjunctive tool for patient education, however clinicians need to be wary of the possibility for partial inaccuracies and incomplete responses, and should warn their patients of the same. The readability of responses was above the average literacy level however all LLM show the capacity to provide more readable responses when prompted.
Keywords
AI, RCC, Patient Education
Figure 1
Figure 1 Caption
Figure 2
Figure 2 Caption
Figure 3
Figure 3 Caption
Figure 4
Figure 4 Caption
Figure 5
Figure 5 Caption
Character Count
2059
Vimeo Link
Presentation Details
Session
Date
Time
Presentation Order