Partners

Abstract:
Background: Chatbots using the Large Language Model (LLM) generate human responses to questions from all
categories. Due to staff shortages in healthcare systems, patients waiting for an appointment increasingly use
chatbots to get information about their condition. Given the number of chatbots currently available, assessing the
responses they generate is essential.
Methods: Five chatbots with free access were selected (Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, PiAI, ChatGPT, ChatSpot) and
blinded using letters (A, B, C, D, E). Each chatbot was asked questions about cardiology, oncology, and psoriasis.
Responses were compared to guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology, American Academy of
Dermatology and American Society of Clinical Oncology. All answers were assessed using readability scales
(Flesch Reading Scale, Gunning Fog Scale Level, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Dale-Chall Score). Using a 3-
point Likert scale, two independent medical professionals assessed the compliance of the responses with the
guidelines.
Results: A total of 45 questions were asked of all chatbots. Chatbot C gave the shortest answers, 7.0 (6.0 – 8.0), and Chatbot A the longest 17.5 (13.0 – 24.5). The Flesch Reading Ease Scale ranged from 16.3 (12.2 – 21.9)
(Chatbot D) to 39.8 (29.0 – 50.4) (Chatbot A). Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level ranged from 12.5 (10.6 – 14.6) (Chatbot A) to 15.9 (15.1 – 17.1) (Chatbot D). Gunning Fog Scale Level ranged from 15.77 (Chatbot A) to 19.73 (Chatbot D). Dale-Chall Score ranged from 10.3 (9.3 – 11.3) (Chatbot A) to 11.9 (11.5 – 12.4) (Chatbot D).
Conclusion: This study indicates that chatbots vary in length, quality, and readability. They answer each question
in their own way, based on the data they have pulled from the web. Reliability of the responses generated by
chatbots is high. This suggests that people who want information from a chatbot need to be careful and verify the answers they receive, particularly when they ask about medical and health aspects.

Keywords:
Chatbots,Readability,Cardiovascular health,Oncology

Abstract:
Brachial aortic Pulse Wave Velocity (baPWV) and bone mineral density (BMD) are important indicators of cardiovascular health and bone strength, respectively. However, the gender-specific association between baPWV and BMD remains unclear. The aim of our study is to evaluate the relationship between baPWV and
BMD in men and women populations Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in electronic databases for relevant studies published between the 1th and 30rd of April 2023. Studies reporting the correlation between baPWV and BMD in both males and
females were considered. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled correlation coefficients (r). Results: Relevant data for both genders were found in six articles. In all publications included in the meta-analysis, the total number of studied individuals was 3800, with 2054 women and 1746 men. Pooled correlation coefficient was -0,24 (95% CI: -0.34; -0.15) in women population, and -0.12 (95%CI: -0.16, -0.06) in
men. Conclusions: Based on the published data, we found that baPWV is negatively correlated with bone density in women. However, in men we do not find such a
relationship. These findings suggest the importance of considering gender-specific factors when assessing the cardiovascular and bone health relationship.

Keywords:
Bone mineral density, osteoporosis, brachial aortic Pulse Wave Velocity, arterial stiffness, gender differences