Skarzynski Tinnitus Scale: Cultural Adaptation and Validation to Brazilian Portuguese

Sanfins, Milaine Dominici; Donadon, Caroline; Gos, Elżbieta; Serra, Ana Paula; Rezende, Adriano; Ferrazoli, Natalia; Skarżyński, Piotr H.

doi:10.1055/s-0042-1742351

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This problem was not detected by us in the second and third sessions when a smaller number of questionnaires was also listed. On the other hand, there was no mention of some newer questionnaires that are gaining attention, and ChatGPT said nothing about the need to have questionnaires adapted to the patient's native language [40,41].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ChatGPT for Tinnitus Information and Support: Response Accuracy and Retest after Three and Six Months

Jedrzejczak,

Skarzynski,

Raj-Koziak

et al. 2024

Brain Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing of ChatGPT has recently been performed over a diverse range of topics. However, most of these assessments have been based on broad domains of knowledge. Here, we test ChatGPT’s knowledge of tinnitus, an important but specialized aspect of audiology and otolaryngology. Testing involved evaluating ChatGPT’s answers to a defined set of 10 questions on tinnitus. Furthermore, given the technology is advancing quickly, we re-evaluated the responses to the same 10 questions 3 and 6 months later. The accuracy of the responses was rated by 6 experts (the authors) using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Most of ChatGPT’s responses were rated as satisfactory or better. However, we did detect a few instances where the responses were not accurate and might be considered somewhat misleading. Over the first 3 months, the ratings generally improved, but there was no more significant improvement at 6 months. In our judgment, ChatGPT provided unexpectedly good responses, given that the questions were quite specific. Although no potentially harmful errors were identified, some mistakes could be seen as somewhat misleading. ChatGPT shows great potential if further developed by experts in specific areas, but for now, it is not yet ready for serious application.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ChatGPT for Tinnitus Information and Support: Response Accuracy and Retest after Three and Six Months

Jedrzejczak,

Skarzynski,

Raj-Koziak

et al. 2024

Brain Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, there was no mention of some newer questionnaires that are gaining attention (e.g. [26]). Also ChatGPT said nothing about the need to have questionnaires adapted to the patient's native language.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ChatGPT for tinnitus information and support: response accuracy and retest after three months

Jedrzejczak,

Skarzynski,

Raj-Koziak

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundChatGPT – a conversational tool based on artificial intelligence – has recently been tested on a range of topics. However most of the testing has involved broad domains of knowledge. Here we test ChatGPT’s knowledge of tinnitus, an important but specialized aspect of audiology and otolaryngology. Testing involved evaluating ChatGPT’s answers to a defined set of 10 questions on tinnitus. Furthermore, given the technology is advancing quickly, we re-evaluated the responses to the same 10 questions 3 months later.Material and methodChatGPT (free version 3.5) was asked 10 questions on tinnitus at two points of time – August 2023 and November 2023. The accuracy of the responses was rated by 6 experts using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. The number of words in each response was also counted, and responses were specifically examined for whether references were provided or whether consultation with a specialist was suggested.ResultsMost of ChatGPT’s responses were rated as satisfactory or better. However, we did detect a few instances where the responses were not accurate and might be considered somewhat misleading. The responses from ChatGPT were quite long (averaging over 400 words) and they occasionally tended to stray off-topic. No solid references to sources of information were ever supplied, and when references were specifically asked for the sources were artificial. For most responses consultation with a specialist was suggested. It is worth noting that after 3 months the responses generally improved.ConclusionsChatGPT provided surprisingly good responses, given that the questions were quite specific. Although no potentially harmful errors were identified, some mistakes could be seen as somewhat misleading. No solid references were ever supplied. ChatGPT shows great potential if further developed by experts in specific areas, but for now it is not yet ready for serious application.

show abstract

ChatGPT for tinnitus information and support: response accuracy and retest after three months (Preprint)

Jedrzejczak,

Skarzynski,

Raj-Koziak

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND ChatGPT – a conversational tool based on artificial intelligence – has recently been tested on a range of topics. However most of the testing has involved broad domains of knowledge. OBJECTIVE Here we test ChatGPT’s knowledge of tinnitus, an important but specialized aspect of audiology and otolaryngology. Testing involved evaluating ChatGPT’s answers to a defined set of 10 questions on tinnitus. Furthermore, given the technology is advancing quickly, we re-evaluated the responses to the same 10 questions 3 months later. METHODS ChatGPT (free version 3.5) was asked 10 questions on tinnitus at two points of time – August 2023 and November 2023. The accuracy of the responses was rated by 6 experts using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. The number of words in each response was also counted, and responses were specifically examined for whether references were provided or whether consultation with a specialist was suggested. RESULTS Most of ChatGPT’s responses were rated as satisfactory or better. However, we did detect a few instances where the responses were not accurate and might be considered somewhat misleading. The responses from ChatGPT were quite long (averaging over 400 words) and they occasionally tended to stray off-topic. No solid references to sources of information were ever supplied, and when references were specifically asked for the sources were artificial. For most responses consultation with a specialist was suggested. It is worth noting that after 3 months the responses generally improved (p = 0.0031). CONCLUSIONS ChatGPT provided surprisingly good responses, given that the questions were quite specific. Although no potentially harmful errors were identified, some mistakes could be seen as somewhat misleading. No solid references were ever supplied. ChatGPT shows great potential if further developed by experts in specific areas, but for now it is not yet ready for serious application.

show abstract

Skarzynski Tinnitus Scale: Cultural Adaptation and Validation to Brazilian Portuguese

Cited by 3 publications

References 33 publications

ChatGPT for Tinnitus Information and Support: Response Accuracy and Retest after Three and Six Months

ChatGPT for Tinnitus Information and Support: Response Accuracy and Retest after Three and Six Months

ChatGPT for tinnitus information and support: response accuracy and retest after three months

ChatGPT for tinnitus information and support: response accuracy and retest after three months (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About