A pilot study on the efficacy of GPT-4 in providing orthopedic treatment recommendations from MRI reports

Generative artificial intelligence in healthcare: A scoping review on benefits, challenges and applications

BACKGROUND

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is revolutionizing healthcare with solutions for complex challenges, enhancing diagnosis, treatment, and care through new data and insights. However, its integration raises questions about applications, benefits, and challenges. Our study explores these aspects, offering an overview of GAI's applications and future prospects in healthcare.

METHODS

This scoping review searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus . The selection of studies involved screening titles, reviewing abstracts, and examining full texts, adhering to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines throughout the process.

RESULTS

From 1406 articles across three databases, 109 met inclusion criteria after screening and deduplication. Nine GAI models were utilized in healthcare, with ChatGPT (n = 102, 74 %), Google Bard (Gemini) (n = 16, 11 %), and Microsoft Bing AI (n = 10, 7 %) being the most frequently employed. A total of 24 different applications of GAI in healthcare were identified, with the most common being "offering insights and information on health conditions through answering questions" (n = 41) and "diagnosis and prediction of diseases" (n = 17). In total, 606 benefits and challenges were identified, which were condensed to 48 benefits and 61 challenges after consolidation. The predominant benefits included "Providing rapid access to information and valuable insights" and "Improving prediction and diagnosis accuracy", while the primary challenges comprised "generating inaccurate or fictional content", "unknown source of information and fake references for texts", and "lower accuracy in answering questions".

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified the applications, benefits, and challenges of GAI in healthcare. This synthesis offers a crucial overview of GAI's potential to revolutionize healthcare, emphasizing the imperative to address its limitations.

ChatGPT in radiology: A systematic review of performance, pitfalls, and future perspectives

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the reported performances of ChatGPT, identify potential limitations, and explore future directions for its integration, optimization, and ethical considerations in radiology applications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a comprehensive review of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar databases, a cohort of published studies was identified up to January 1, 2024, utilizing ChatGPT for clinical radiology applications.

RESULTS

Out of 861 studies derived, 44 studies evaluated the performance of ChatGPT; among these, 37 (37/44; 84.1%) demonstrated high performance, and seven (7/44; 15.9%) indicated it had a lower performance in providing information on diagnosis and clinical decision support (6/44; 13.6%) and patient communication and educational content (1/44; 2.3%). Twenty-four (24/44; 54.5%) studies reported the proportion of ChatGPT's performance. Among these, 19 (19/24; 79.2%) studies recorded a median accuracy of 70.5%, and in five (5/24; 20.8%) studies, there was a median agreement of 83.6% between ChatGPT outcomes and reference standards [radiologists' decision or guidelines], generally confirming ChatGPT's high accuracy in these studies. Eleven studies compared two recent ChatGPT versions, and in ten (10/11; 90.9%), ChatGPTv4 outperformed v3.5, showing notable enhancements in addressing higher-order thinking questions, better comprehension of radiology terms, and improved accuracy in describing images. Risks and concerns about using ChatGPT included biased responses, limited originality, and the potential for inaccurate information leading to misinformation, hallucinations, improper citations and fake references, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and patient privacy risks.

CONCLUSION

Although ChatGPT's effectiveness has been shown in 84.1% of radiology studies, there are still multiple pitfalls and limitations to address. It is too soon to confirm its complete proficiency and accuracy, and more extensive multicenter studies utilizing diverse datasets and pre-training techniques are required to verify ChatGPT's role in radiology.

Bioinformatics and biomedical informatics with ChatGPT: year one review

The year 2023 marked a significant surge in the exploration of applying large language model (LLM) chatbots, notably ChatGPT, across various disciplines. We surveyed the applications of ChatGPT in various sectors of bioinformatics and biomedical informatics throughout the year, covering omics, genetics, biomedical text mining, drug discovery, biomedical image understanding, bioinformatics programming, and bioinformatics education. Our survey delineates the current strengths and limitations of this chatbot in bioinformatics and offers insights into potential avenues for future development.

Uncovering Language Disparity of ChatGPT on Retinal Vascular Disease Classification: Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Benefiting from rich knowledge and the exceptional ability to understand text, large language models like ChatGPT have shown great potential in English clinical environments. However, the performance of ChatGPT in non-English clinical settings, as well as its reasoning, have not been explored in depth.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT's diagnostic performance and inference abilities for retinal vascular diseases in a non-English clinical environment.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we collected 1226 fundus fluorescein angiography reports and corresponding diagnoses written in Chinese and tested ChatGPT with 4 prompting strategies (direct diagnosis or diagnosis with a step-by-step reasoning process and in Chinese or English).

RESULTS

Compared with ChatGPT using Chinese prompts for direct diagnosis that achieved an F1-score of 70.47%, ChatGPT using English prompts for direct diagnosis achieved the best diagnostic performance (80.05%), which was inferior to ophthalmologists (89.35%) but close to ophthalmologist interns (82.69%). As for its inference abilities, although ChatGPT can derive a reasoning process with a low error rate (0.4 per report) for both Chinese and English prompts, ophthalmologists identified that the latter brought more reasoning steps with less incompleteness (44.31%), misinformation (1.96%), and hallucinations (0.59%) (all P<.001). Also, analysis of the robustness of ChatGPT with different language prompts indicated significant differences in the recall (P=.03) and F1-score (P=.04) between Chinese and English prompts. In short, when prompted in English, ChatGPT exhibited enhanced diagnostic and inference capabilities for retinal vascular disease classification based on Chinese fundus fluorescein angiography reports.

CONCLUSIONS

ChatGPT can serve as a helpful medical assistant to provide diagnosis in non-English clinical environments, but there are still performance gaps, language disparities, and errors compared to professionals, which demonstrate the potential limitations and the need to continually explore more robust large language models in ophthalmology practice.