Criteria and Categories Used for Rating
| Criterion | Description |
|---|---|
| Appropriateness | |
| 1: Highly appropriate | Meeting standards of information given by medical staff in nuclear medicine department |
| 2: Quite appropriate | Minor aspects incorrect or inconsistent |
| 3: Quite inappropriate | Relevant aspects inconsistent |
| 4: Highly inappropriate | Major aspects incorrect; potentially harmful |
| Helpfulness | |
| 1: Very helpful | Comprehensive and likely to fully answer patient’s question |
| 2: Quite helpful | Specific but lacking potentially helpful information |
| 3: Quite unhelpful | Specific but lacking crucial information related to patient’s question |
| 4: Clearly unhelpful | Unspecific and lacking crucial information |
| Empathetic | |
| Yes | Shows humanlike empathy |
| No | Is neutral and shows no empathy |
| Inconsistent between trials | |
| 1: Irrelevant | Differences only in wording, style, or layout |
| 2: Minor | Differences in content of response but none relevant to main content required to answer patient’s question |
| 3: Major | Some differences relevant to main content |
| 4: Incompatible | Responses incompatible with each other |
| Validity of references | |
| 1: Fully valid | Appropriate, identifiable, and accessible source |
| 2: Appropriate but outdated | Appropriate reference but outdated uniform resource locator or only generic references |
| 3: Appropriate, incorrectly cited, but possible to find | Appropriate reference with incorrect bibliographic data but still possible to find |
| 4: Invalid | Invalid reference that cannot be found (hallucinations) |