Advancing Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Knowledge Retrieval: A Case Study Using ChatGPT-4 and Link Retrieval Plug-In to Analyze Diabetic Ketoacidosis Guidelines

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.

ChatGPT fails challenging the recent ESCMID brain abscess guideline

BACKGROUND

With artificial intelligence (AI) on the rise, it remains unclear if AI is able to professionally evaluate medical research and give scientifically valid recommendations.

AIM

This study aimed to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses to ten key questions on brain abscess diagnostics and treatment in comparison to the guideline recently published by the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID).

METHODS

All ten PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) questions which had been developed during the guideline process were presented directly to ChatGPT. Next, ChatGPT was additionally fed with data from studies selected for each PECO question by the ESCMID committee. AI's responses were subsequently compared with the recommendations of the ESCMID guideline.

RESULTS

For 17 out of 20 challenges, ChatGPT was able to give recommendations on the management of patients with brain abscess, including grade of evidence and strength of recommendation. Without data prompting, 70% of questions were answered very similar to the guideline recommendation. In the answers that differed from the guideline recommendations, no patient hazard was present. Data input slightly improved the clarity of ChatGPT's recommendations, but, however, led to less correct answers including two recommendations that directly contradicted the guideline, being associated with the possibility of a hazard to the patient.

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT seems to be able to rapidly gather information on brain abscesses and give recommendations on key questions about their management in most cases. Nevertheless, single responses could possibly harm the patients. Thus, the expertise of an expert committee remains inevitable.

Review of emerging trends and projection of future developments in large language models research in ophthalmology

BACKGROUND

Large language models (LLMs) are fast emerging as potent tools in healthcare, including ophthalmology. This systematic review offers a twofold contribution: it summarises current trends in ophthalmology-related LLM research and projects future directions for this burgeoning field.

METHODS

We systematically searched across various databases (PubMed, Europe PMC, Scopus and Web of Science) for articles related to LLM use in ophthalmology, published between 1 January 2022 and 31 July 2023. Selected articles were summarised, and categorised by type (editorial, commentary, original research, etc) and their research focus (eg, evaluating ChatGPT's performance in ophthalmology examinations or clinical tasks).

FINDINGS

We identified 32 articles meeting our criteria, published between January and July 2023, with a peak in June (n=12). Most were original research evaluating LLMs' proficiency in clinically related tasks (n=9). Studies demonstrated that ChatGPT-4.0 outperformed its predecessor, ChatGPT-3.5, in ophthalmology exams. Furthermore, ChatGPT excelled in constructing discharge notes (n=2), evaluating diagnoses (n=2) and answering general medical queries (n=6). However, it struggled with generating scientific articles or abstracts (n=3) and answering specific subdomain questions, especially those regarding specific treatment options (n=2). ChatGPT's performance relative to other LLMs (Google's Bard, Microsoft's Bing) varied by study design. Ethical concerns such as data hallucination (n=27), authorship (n=5) and data privacy (n=2) were frequently cited.

INTERPRETATION

While LLMs hold transformative potential for healthcare and ophthalmology, concerns over accountability, accuracy and data security remain. Future research should focus on application programming interface integration, comparative assessments of popular LLMs, their ability to interpret image-based data and the establishment of standardised evaluation frameworks.