RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the consistency and accuracy of responses provided by two artificial intelligence (AI) applications, ChatGPT and Google Bard (Gemini), to questions related to dental trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the International Association of Dental Traumatology guidelines, 25 dichotomous (yes/no) questions were posed to ChatGPT and Google Bard over 10 days. The responses were recorded and compared with the correct answers. Statistical analyses, including Fleiss kappa, were conducted to determine the agreement and consistency of the responses. RESULTS: Analysis of 4500 responses revealed that both applications provided correct answers to 57.5% of the questions. Google Bard demonstrated a moderate level of agreement, with varying rates of incorrect answers and referrals to physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Although ChatGPT and Google Bard are potential knowledge resources, their consistency and accuracy in responding to dental trauma queries remain limited. Further research involving specially trained AI models in endodontics is warranted to assess their suitability for clinical use.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Publications on vaccine hesitancy and the novel coronavirus disease 2019 in the scientific literature are increasing every day. An examination of their content will help to eliminate the existing negativity related to vaccine hesitancy through scientific methods. Hence, a systematic approach to the prevention of vaccine hesitancy worldwide can be developed. This article aims to survey how vaccine hesitancy is addressed in the PubMed articles about "vaccine hesitancy" over the novel coronavirus disease, for which the MeSH criteria have been published; to understand their recommendations for the prevention of vaccine hesitancy; to evaluate any related research described as "cross-sectional," "case-control," and "cohort" according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria; and to contribute to the current literature on the subject. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study is planned to use a systematic review format and STROBE checklist was used to evaluate the articles accessed from PubMed database. Microsoft Excel was used as the data calculation tool. RESULTS: Sixty-five (81.3%) of the 80 articles investigated in the scope of this study mention "vaccine." While 64 articles (80%) discuss the determination of vaccine hesitancy, 57 (71.3%) articles address its prevention. The keyword "COVID-19" is used in 61 articles (79.2%). The second most frequently used keyword is "vaccine hesitancy" (n = 37, 48.1%), followed by "vaccine" (n = 25, 32.5%). Twenty-nine (48%) of the reviewed articles originate from the WHO American Continents. The second most represented region of research is the European Region (n = 21, 35%), followed by the South East Asian Region (n = 5, 8%). CONCLUSION: This study illustrates the recent situation for the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine and reveals the presence of a vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is a risk factor that could prevent herd immunity. The systematic review of scientific articles should continue with improvements in order to tackle the problem as exemplified by the present study. Other checklists as well as STROBE checklist are recommended to be used in similar studies to have more objective conclusions.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to investigate the anxiety status of the patient before elective cholecystectomy and to analyze the relation between the level of anxiety for a given operation type (laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy) and the corresponding demographic and social data. METHODS: A total of 333 patients undergoing cholecystectomy due to cholelithiasis were included in the study; 218 patients (66.1%) received laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 115 patients (33.9%) were treated with open cholecystectomy. The Beck Anxiety Inventory was given to all patients to be completed. We evaluated levels of anxiety in 3 groups as follows: 0 to 15, low to mild anxiety; 16 to 25, moderate anxiety; 26 to 63, severe anxiety. The following patient information remained confidential and was recorded: age and sex, associated disease, civil status, educational status, having open/laparoscopic cholecystectomy, previous knowledge of the operation, job status, economic status, health insurance, and having a child in need of care. RESULTS: The following criteria were determined: the most determinant factors in differentiating between the score groups were having a low level of education, being of the female sex, being single, and having laparoscopic operation; the factors of being a homemaker and over the age of 25 years were determined to have significant effects. CONCLUSIONS: When analyzing the results that may appear during the intraoperative and postoperative period, understanding preoperative anxiety, analyzing the risk factors in depth, and taking the necessary precautions are all considerations that need to be the primary objectives of operators who are involved with laparoscopic, endoscopic, and robotic surgery.