Modern Machiavelli? The Illusion of ChatGPT-Generated Patient Reviews in Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery Based on 9,000 Review Classifications

鼻整形术 系统回顾 医学 心理学 人工智能 外科 梅德林 计算机科学 政治学 法学 鼻子
作者
Samuel Knoedler,Giuseppe Sofo,Barbara Kern,Konstantin Frank,Sebastian Cotofana,Sarah von Isenburg,Sören Könneker,Francesco Mazzarone,Amir H. Dorafshar,Leonard Knoedler,Michael Alfertshofer
出处
期刊:Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery [Elsevier BV]
卷期号:88: 99-108
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.bjps.2023.10.119
摘要

Online patient reviews are crucial in guiding individuals who seek plastic surgery, but artificial chatbots pose a threat of disseminating fake reviews. This study aimed to compare real patient feedback with ChatGPT-generated reviews for the top five US plastic surgery procedures.Thirty real patient reviews on rhinoplasty, blepharoplasty, facelift, liposuction, and breast augmentation were collected from RealSelf and used as templates for ChatGPT to generate matching patient reviews. Prolific users (n = 30) assessed 150 pairs of reviews to identify human-written and artificial intelligence (AI)-generated reviews. Patient reviews were further assessed using AI content detector software (Copyleaks AI).Among the 9000 classification tasks, 64.3% and 35.7% of reviews were classified as authentic and fake, respectively. On an average, the author (human versus machine) was correctly identified in 59.6% of cases, and this poor classification performance was consistent across all procedures. Patients with prior aesthetic treatment showed poorer classification performance than those without (p < 0.05). The mean character count in human-written reviews was significantly higher (p < 0.001) that that in AI-generated reviews, with a significant correlation between character count and participants' accuracy rate (p < 0.001). Emotional timbre of reviews differed significantly with "happiness" being more prevalent in human-written reviews (p < 0.001), and "disappointment" being more prevalent in AI reviews (p = 0.005). Copyleaks AI correctly classified 96.7% and 69.3% of human-written and ChatGPT-generated reviews, respectively.ChatGPT convincingly replicates authentic patient reviews, even deceiving commercial AI detection software. Analyzing emotional tone and review length can help differentiate real from fake reviews, underscoring the need to educate both patients and physicians to prevent misinformation and mistrust.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
刚刚
天天快乐应助YY采纳,获得10
1秒前
1秒前
1秒前
1秒前
传奇3应助落枫流年采纳,获得30
1秒前
lumen完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
小匹夫完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
2秒前
2秒前
2秒前
2秒前
3秒前
ZYH完成签到 ,获得积分10
3秒前
百川流完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
4秒前
梧桐完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
4秒前
早晚会疯完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
宋星慧遥发布了新的文献求助20
4秒前
冷傲路灯完成签到 ,获得积分10
5秒前
李健应助178181采纳,获得30
6秒前
6秒前
wmz发布了新的文献求助100
6秒前
7秒前
puhui发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
呆梨医生完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
NexusExplorer应助张wx_100采纳,获得10
7秒前
7秒前
小刘发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
1147468624发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
8秒前
8秒前
8秒前
不愧是我完成签到 ,获得积分10
9秒前
呆梨医生发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
10秒前
11秒前
尹汉通发布了新的文献求助10
11秒前
11秒前
高分求助中
Picture Books with Same-sex Parented Families: Unintentional Censorship 1000
A new approach to the extrapolation of accelerated life test data 1000
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 12th edition 500
Nucleophilic substitution in azasydnone-modified dinitroanisoles 500
Indomethacinのヒトにおける経皮吸収 400
Phylogenetic study of the order Polydesmida (Myriapoda: Diplopoda) 370
基于可调谐半导体激光吸收光谱技术泄漏气体检测系统的研究 310
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 遗传学 基因 物理化学 催化作用 冶金 细胞生物学 免疫学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3979392
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3523308
关于积分的说明 11217159
捐赠科研通 3260797
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1800211
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 878960
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 807113