Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Allergy and Immunology Practice: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?

The future of dermatological research: ethical implications of artificial intelligence integration for medical students

This letter examines the increasing reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT among medical students in dermatology research, driven by the competitive nature of residency matching. While AI can significantly boost research productivity, it also introduces ethical concerns, including risks of academic dishonesty, data privacy issues, and potential over-reliance on technology that may undermine students’ critical thinking and intellectual development. Balancing the benefits of AI with a commitment to ethical standards is crucial to preserving the integrity and quality of medical research.

ChatGPT Performance on 120 Interdisciplinary Allergology Questions-Systematic Evaluation With Clinical Error Impact Assessment for Critical Erroneous AI-Guided Chatbot Advice

BACKGROUND

ChatGPT (Chatbot with Generative Pretrained Transformer), despite not being a medical device, may be used by patients for medical inquiries. Its accessibility and convenience, particularly amidst long waiting times for allergology appointments, make it an attractive but potentially erroneous source of advice.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluates ChatGPT's performance on allergological questions from clinical practice, offering a systematic approach to rating its errors. An Allergological Error Impact Assessment is proposed to analyze the potential consequences of these errors on patients.

METHODS

A total of 120 multidisciplinary allergology questions from dermatology, pediatrics, and pulmonology were prompted to ChatGPT (3.5). Errors were assessed in terms of content, accuracy (ACC), completeness (CO), perceived humanness (PHU), and readability (Flesch Reading Ease). Erroneous responses were categorized on a 3-step severity scale (minor, major, and critical). Critical errors underwent allergological error impact analysis. Statistical evaluation included descriptive analyses and Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

ChatGPT demonstrated good accuracy (mean ACC 4.1/5, standard deviation: 0.78, range: 1-5). CO and PHU were sufficient but lowest for pediatric queries. Readability was at an academic level for most responses. Six critical errors were identified: 1 in dermatology, 2 in pediatrics, and 3 in pulmonology. Notably, a critical pediatric food allergen error carried a potentially life-threatening risk.

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT's imperfect reliability in allergology highlights the need for expert counseling in specialized fields. Tailoring these tools to allergy use cases could improve utility of models like ChatGPT for clinical applications, such as answering questions from allergological routine care.

Artificial intelligence applications for immunology laboratory: image analysis and classification study of IIF photos

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used in medicine to enhance the speed and accuracy of disease diagnosis and treatment. AI-based image analysis is expected to play a crucial role in future healthcare facilities and laboratories, offering improved precision and cost-effectiveness. As technology advances, the requirement for specialized software knowledge to utilize AI applications is diminishing. Our study will examine the advantages and challenges of employing AI-based image analysis in the field of immunology and will investigate whether physicians without software expertise can use MS Azure Portal for ANA IIF test classification and image analysis. This is the first study to perform Hep-2 image analysis using MS Azure Portal. We will also assess the potential for AI applications to aid physicians in interpreting ANA IIF results in immunology laboratories. The study was designed in four stages by two specialists. Stage 1: creation of an image library, Stage 2: finding an artificial intelligence application, Stage 3: uploading images and training artificial intelligence, Stage 4: performance analysis of the artificial intelligence application. In the first training, the average pattern identification accuracy for 72 testing images was 81.94%. After the second training, this accuracy increased to 87.5%. Patterns Precision improved from 71.42 to 79.96% after the second training. As a result, the number of correctly identified patterns and their accuracy increased with the second training process. Artificial intelligence-based image analysis shows promising potential. This technology is expected to become essential in healthcare facility laboratories, offering higher accuracy rates and lower costs.

Applications and Concerns of ChatGPT and Other Conversational Large Language Models in Health Care: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The launch of ChatGPT (OpenAI) in November 2022 attracted public attention and academic interest to large language models (LLMs), facilitating the emergence of many other innovative LLMs. These LLMs have been applied in various fields, including health care. Numerous studies have since been conducted regarding how to use state-of-the-art LLMs in health-related scenarios.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to summarize applications of and concerns regarding conversational LLMs in health care and provide an agenda for future research in this field.

METHODS

We used PubMed, ACM, and the IEEE digital libraries as primary sources for this review. We followed the guidance of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) to screen and select peer-reviewed research articles that (1) were related to health care applications and conversational LLMs and (2) were published before September 1, 2023, the date when we started paper collection. We investigated these papers and classified them according to their applications and concerns.

RESULTS

Our search initially identified 820 papers according to targeted keywords, out of which 65 (7.9%) papers met our criteria and were included in the review. The most popular conversational LLM was ChatGPT (60/65, 92% of papers), followed by Bard (Google LLC; 1/65, 2% of papers), LLaMA (Meta; 1/65, 2% of papers), and other LLMs (6/65, 9% papers). These papers were classified into four categories of applications: (1) summarization, (2) medical knowledge inquiry, (3) prediction (eg, diagnosis, treatment recommendation, and drug synergy), and (4) administration (eg, documentation and information collection), and four categories of concerns: (1) reliability (eg, training data quality, accuracy, interpretability, and consistency in responses), (2) bias, (3) privacy, and (4) public acceptability. There were 49 (75%) papers using LLMs for either summarization or medical knowledge inquiry, or both, and there are 58 (89%) papers expressing concerns about either reliability or bias, or both. We found that conversational LLMs exhibited promising results in summarization and providing general medical knowledge to patients with a relatively high accuracy. However, conversational LLMs such as ChatGPT are not always able to provide reliable answers to complex health-related tasks (eg, diagnosis) that require specialized domain expertise. While bias or privacy issues are often noted as concerns, no experiments in our reviewed papers thoughtfully examined how conversational LLMs lead to these issues in health care research.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies should focus on improving the reliability of LLM applications in complex health-related tasks, as well as investigating the mechanisms of how LLM applications bring bias and privacy issues. Considering the vast accessibility of LLMs, legal, social, and technical efforts are all needed to address concerns about LLMs to promote, improve, and regularize the application of LLMs in health care.

Assessing the Impact of ChatGPT in Dermatology: A Comprehensive Rapid Review

Background/Objectives: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in dermatology is expanding rapidly, with ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM) from OpenAI, showing promise in patient education, clinical decision-making, and teledermatology. Despite its potential, the ethical, clinical, and practical implications of its application remain insufficiently explored. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, challenges, and future prospects of ChatGPT in dermatology, focusing on clinical applications, patient interactions, and medical writing. ChatGPT was selected due to its broad adoption, extensive validation, and strong performance in dermatology-related tasks. Methods: A thorough literature review was conducted, focusing on publications related to ChatGPT and dermatology. The search included articles in English from November 2022 to August 2024, as this period captures the most recent developments following the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, ensuring that the review includes the latest advancements and discussions on its role in dermatology. Studies were chosen based on their relevance to clinical applications, patient interactions, and ethical issues. Descriptive metrics, such as average accuracy scores and reliability percentages, were used to summarize study characteristics, and key findings were analyzed. Results: ChatGPT has shown significant potential in passing dermatology specialty exams and providing reliable responses to patient queries, especially for common dermatological conditions. However, it faces limitations in diagnosing complex cases like cutaneous neoplasms, and concerns about the accuracy and completeness of its information persist. Ethical issues, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the need for transparent guidelines, were identified as critical challenges. Conclusions: While ChatGPT has the potential to significantly enhance dermatological practice, particularly in patient education and teledermatology, its integration must be cautious, addressing ethical concerns and complementing, rather than replacing, dermatologist expertise. Future research should refine ChatGPT's diagnostic capabilities, mitigate biases, and develop comprehensive clinical guidelines.

Assessing GPT-4's Performance in Delivering Medical Advice: Comparative Analysis With Human Experts

Background

Accurate medical advice is paramount in ensuring optimal patient care, and misinformation can lead to misguided decisions with potentially detrimental health outcomes. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI's GPT-4 has spurred interest in their potential health care applications, particularly in automated medical consultation. Yet, rigorous investigations comparing their performance to human experts remain sparse.

Objective

This study aims to compare the medical accuracy of GPT-4 with human experts in providing medical advice using real-world user-generated queries, with a specific focus on cardiology. It also sought to analyze the performance of GPT-4 and human experts in specific question categories, including drug or medication information and preliminary diagnoses.

Methods

We collected 251 pairs of cardiology-specific questions from general users and answers from human experts via an internet portal. GPT-4 was tasked with generating responses to the same questions. Three independent cardiologists (SL, JHK, and JJC) evaluated the answers provided by both human experts and GPT-4. Using a computer interface, each evaluator compared the pairs and determined which answer was superior, and they quantitatively measured the clarity and complexity of the questions as well as the accuracy and appropriateness of the responses, applying a 3-tiered grading scale (low, medium, and high). Furthermore, a linguistic analysis was conducted to compare the length and vocabulary diversity of the responses using word count and type-token ratio.

Results

GPT-4 and human experts displayed comparable efficacy in medical accuracy ("GPT-4 is better" at 132/251, 52.6% vs "Human expert is better" at 119/251, 47.4%). In accuracy level categorization, humans had more high-accuracy responses than GPT-4 (50/237, 21.1% vs 30/238, 12.6%) but also a greater proportion of low-accuracy responses (11/237, 4.6% vs 1/238, 0.4%; P=.001). GPT-4 responses were generally longer and used a less diverse vocabulary than those of human experts, potentially enhancing their comprehensibility for general users (sentence count: mean 10.9, SD 4.2 vs mean 5.9, SD 3.7; P<.001; type-token ratio: mean 0.69, SD 0.07 vs mean 0.79, SD 0.09; P<.001). Nevertheless, human experts outperformed GPT-4 in specific question categories, notably those related to drug or medication information and preliminary diagnoses. These findings highlight the limitations of GPT-4 in providing advice based on clinical experience.

Conclusions

GPT-4 has shown promising potential in automated medical consultation, with comparable medical accuracy to human experts. However, challenges remain particularly in the realm of nuanced clinical judgment. Future improvements in LLMs may require the integration of specific clinical reasoning pathways and regulatory oversight for safe use. Further research is needed to understand the full potential of LLMs across various medical specialties and conditions.

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Allergy Diagnosis and Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Artificial intelligence (AI), be it neuronal networks, machine learning or deep learning, has numerous beneficial effects on healthcare systems; however, its potential applications and diagnostic capabilities for immunologic diseases have yet to be explored. Understanding AI systems can help healthcare workers better assimilate artificial intelligence into their practice and unravel its potential in diagnostics, clinical research, and disease management.

RECENT FINDINGS

We reviewed recent advancements in AI systems and their integration in healthcare systems, along with their potential benefits in the diagnosis and management of diseases. We explored machine learning as employed in allergy diagnosis and its learning patterns from patient datasets, as well as the possible advantages of using AI in the field of research related to allergic reactions and even remote monitoring. Considering the ethical challenges and privacy concerns raised by clinicians and patients with regard to integrating AI in healthcare, we explored the new guidelines adapted by regulatory bodies. Despite these challenges, AI appears to have been successfully incorporated into various healthcare systems and is providing patient-centered solutions while simultaneously assisting healthcare workers. Artificial intelligence offers new hope in the field of immunologic disease diagnosis, monitoring, and management and thus has the potential to revolutionize healthcare systems.

A Systematic Review of ChatGPT and Other Conversational Large Language Models in Healthcare

Background

The launch of the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) in November 2022 has attracted public attention and academic interest to large language models (LLMs), facilitating the emergence of many other innovative LLMs. These LLMs have been applied in various fields, including healthcare. Numerous studies have since been conducted regarding how to employ state-of-the-art LLMs in health-related scenarios to assist patients, doctors, and public health administrators.

Objective

This review aims to summarize the applications and concerns of applying conversational LLMs in healthcare and provide an agenda for future research on LLMs in healthcare.

Methods

We utilized PubMed, ACM, and IEEE digital libraries as primary sources for this review. We followed the guidance of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRIMSA) to screen and select peer-reviewed research articles that (1) were related to both healthcare applications and conversational LLMs and (2) were published before September 1st, 2023, the date when we started paper collection and screening. We investigated these papers and classified them according to their applications and concerns.

Results

Our search initially identified 820 papers according to targeted keywords, out of which 65 papers met our criteria and were included in the review. The most popular conversational LLM was ChatGPT from OpenAI (60), followed by Bard from Google (1), Large Language Model Meta AI (LLaMA) from Meta (1), and other LLMs (5). These papers were classified into four categories in terms of their applications: 1) summarization, 2) medical knowledge inquiry, 3) prediction, and 4) administration, and four categories of concerns: 1) reliability, 2) bias, 3) privacy, and 4) public acceptability. There are 49 (75%) research papers using LLMs for summarization and/or medical knowledge inquiry, and 58 (89%) research papers expressing concerns about reliability and/or bias. We found that conversational LLMs exhibit promising results in summarization and providing medical knowledge to patients with a relatively high accuracy. However, conversational LLMs like ChatGPT are not able to provide reliable answers to complex health-related tasks that require specialized domain expertise. Additionally, no experiments in our reviewed papers have been conducted to thoughtfully examine how conversational LLMs lead to bias or privacy issues in healthcare research.

Conclusions

Future studies should focus on improving the reliability of LLM applications in complex health-related tasks, as well as investigating the mechanisms of how LLM applications brought bias and privacy issues. Considering the vast accessibility of LLMs, legal, social, and technical efforts are all needed to address concerns about LLMs to promote, improve, and regularize the application of LLMs in healthcare.

Assessment of the Reliability and Clinical Applicability of ChatGPT's Responses to Patients' Common Queries About Rosacea

Objective

Artificial intelligence chatbot, particularly ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer), is capable of analyzing human input and generating human-like responses, which shows its potential application in healthcare. People with rosacea often have questions about alleviating symptoms and daily skin-care, which is suitable for ChatGPT to response. This study aims to assess the reliability and clinical applicability of ChatGPT 3.5 in responding to patients' common queries about rosacea and to evaluate the extent of ChatGPT's coverage in dermatology resources.

Methods

Based on a qualitative analysis of the literature on the queries from rosacea patients, we have extracted 20 questions of patients' greatest concerns, covering four main categories: treatment, triggers and diet, skincare, and special manifestations of rosacea. Each question was inputted into ChatGPT separately for three rounds of question-and-answer conversations. The generated answers will be evaluated by three experienced dermatologists with postgraduate degrees and over five years of clinical experience in dermatology, to assess their reliability and applicability for clinical practice.

Results

The analysis results indicate that the reviewers unanimously agreed that ChatGPT achieved a high reliability of 92.22% to 97.78% in responding to patients' common queries about rosacea. Additionally, almost all answers were applicable for supporting rosacea patient education, with a clinical applicability ranging from 98.61% to 100.00%. The consistency of the expert ratings was excellent (all significance levels were less than 0.05), with a consistency coefficient of 0.404 for content reliability and 0.456 for clinical practicality, indicating significant consistency in the results and a high level of agreement among the expert ratings.

Conclusion

ChatGPT 3.5 exhibits excellent reliability and clinical applicability in responding to patients' common queries about rosacea. This artificial intelligence tool is applicable for supporting rosacea patient education.

AI's deep dive into complex pediatric inguinal hernia issues: a challenge to traditional guidelines?

OBJECTIVE

This study utilized ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence program based on large language models, to explore controversial issues in pediatric inguinal hernia surgery and compare its responses with the guidelines of the European Association of Pediatric Surgeons (EUPSA).

METHODS

Six contentious issues raised by EUPSA were submitted to ChatGPT 4.0 for analysis, for which two independent responses were generated for each issue. These generated answers were subsequently compared with systematic reviews and guidelines. To ensure content accuracy and reliability, a content analysis was conducted, and expert evaluations were solicited for validation. Content analysis evaluated the consistency or discrepancy between ChatGPT 4.0's responses and the guidelines. An expert scoring method assess the quality, reliability, and applicability of responses. The TF-IDF model tested the stability and consistency of the two responses.

RESULTS

The responses generated by ChatGPT 4.0 were mostly consistent with the guidelines. However, some differences and contradictions were noted. The average quality score was 3.33, reliability score was 2.75, and applicability score was 3.46 (out of 5). The average similarity between the two responses was 0.72 (out of 1), Content analysis and expert ratings yielded consistent conclusions, enhancing the credibility of our research.

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT can provide valuable responses to clinical questions, but it has limitations and requires further improvement. It is recommended to combine ChatGPT with other reliable data sources to improve clinical practice and decision-making.

Evaluating the Efficacy of ChatGPT in Navigating the Spanish Medical Residency Entrance Examination (MIR): Promising Horizons for AI in Clinical Medicine

The rapid progress in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing has led to increasingly sophisticated large language models (LLMs) for use in healthcare. This study assesses the performance of two LLMs, the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models, in passing the MIR medical examination for access to medical specialist training in Spain. Our objectives included gauging the model's overall performance, analyzing discrepancies across different medical specialties, discerning between theoretical and practical questions, estimating error proportions, and assessing the hypothetical severity of errors committed by a physician.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied the 2022 Spanish MIR examination results after excluding those questions requiring image evaluations or having acknowledged errors. The remaining 182 questions were presented to the LLM GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 in Spanish and English. Logistic regression models analyzed the relationships between question length, sequence, and performance. We also analyzed the 23 questions with images, using GPT-4's new image analysis capability.

RESULTS

GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5, scoring 86.81% in Spanish (p < 0.001). English translations had a slightly enhanced performance. GPT-4 scored 26.1% of the questions with images in English. The results were worse when the questions were in Spanish, 13.0%, although the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.250). Among medical specialties, GPT-4 achieved a 100% correct response rate in several areas, and the Pharmacology, Critical Care, and Infectious Diseases specialties showed lower performance. The error analysis revealed that while a 13.2% error rate existed, the gravest categories, such as "error requiring intervention to sustain life" and "error resulting in death", had a 0% rate.

CONCLUSIONS

GPT-4 performs robustly on the Spanish MIR examination, with varying capabilities to discriminate knowledge across specialties. While the model's high success rate is commendable, understanding the error severity is critical, especially when considering AI's potential role in real-world medical practice and its implications for patient safety.