Evaluating ChatGPT as an Adjunct for Radiologic Decision-Making

The virtual reference radiologist: comprehensive AI assistance for clinical image reading and interpretation

OBJECTIVES

Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in radiology, but their ability to aid radiologists in interpreting imaging studies remains unexplored. We investigated the effects of a state-of-the-art LLM (GPT-4) on the radiologists' diagnostic workflow.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, six radiologists of different experience levels read 40 selected radiographic [n = 10], CT [n = 10], MRI [n = 10], and angiographic [n = 10] studies unassisted (session one) and assisted by GPT-4 (session two). Each imaging study was presented with demographic data, the chief complaint, and associated symptoms, and diagnoses were registered using an online survey tool. The impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on diagnostic accuracy, confidence, user experience, input prompts, and generated responses was assessed. False information was registered. Linear mixed-effect models were used to quantify the factors (fixed: experience, modality, AI assistance; random: radiologist) influencing diagnostic accuracy and confidence.

RESULTS

When assessing if the correct diagnosis was among the top-3 differential diagnoses, diagnostic accuracy improved slightly from 181/240 (75.4%, unassisted) to 188/240 (78.3%, AI-assisted). Similar improvements were found when only the top differential diagnosis was considered. AI assistance was used in 77.5% of the readings. Three hundred nine prompts were generated, primarily involving differential diagnoses (59.1%) and imaging features of specific conditions (27.5%). Diagnostic confidence was significantly higher when readings were AI-assisted (p > 0.001). Twenty-three responses (7.4%) were classified as hallucinations, while two (0.6%) were misinterpretations.

CONCLUSION

Integrating GPT-4 in the diagnostic process improved diagnostic accuracy slightly and diagnostic confidence significantly. Potentially harmful hallucinations and misinterpretations call for caution and highlight the need for further safeguarding measures.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Using GPT-4 as a virtual assistant when reading images made six radiologists of different experience levels feel more confident and provide more accurate diagnoses; yet, GPT-4 gave factually incorrect and potentially harmful information in 7.4% of its responses.

Practical Evaluation of ChatGPT Performance for Radiology Report Generation

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The process of generating radiology reports is often time-consuming and labor-intensive, prone to incompleteness, heterogeneity, and errors. By employing natural language processing (NLP)-based techniques, this study explores the potential for enhancing the efficiency of radiology report generation through the remarkable capabilities of ChatGPT (Generative Pre-training Transformer), a prominent large language model (LLM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a sample of 1000 records from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) Chest X-ray Database, this investigation employed Claude.ai to extract initial radiological report keywords. ChatGPT then generated radiology reports using a consistent 3-step prompt template outline. Various lexical and sentence similarity techniques were employed to evaluate the correspondence between the AI assistant-generated reports and reference reports authored by medical professionals.

RESULTS

Results showed varying performance among NLP models, with Bart (Bidirectional and Auto-Regressive Transformers) and XLM (Cross-lingual Language Model) displaying high proficiency (mean similarity scores up to 99.3%), closely mirroring physician reports. Conversely, DeBERTa (Decoding-enhanced BERT with disentangled attention) and sequence-matching models scored lower, indicating less alignment with medical language. In the Impression section, the Word-Embedding model excelled with a mean similarity of 84.4%, while others like the Jaccard index showed lower performance.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the study highlights significant variations across NLP models in their ability to generate radiology reports consistent with medical professionals' language. Pairwise comparisons and Kruskal-Wallis tests confirmed these differences, emphasizing the need for careful selection and evaluation of NLP models in radiology report generation. This research underscores the potential of ChatGPT to streamline and improve the radiology reporting process, with implications for enhancing efficiency and accuracy in clinical practice.

Assessing ChatGPT's Capability for Multiple Choice Questions Using RaschOnline: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

ChatGPT (OpenAI), a state-of-the-art large language model, has exhibited remarkable performance in various specialized applications. Despite the growing popularity and efficacy of artificial intelligence, there is a scarcity of studies that assess ChatGPT's competence in addressing multiple-choice questions (MCQs) using KIDMAP of Rasch analysis-a website tool used to evaluate ChatGPT's performance in MCQ answering.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to (1) showcase the utility of the website (Rasch analysis, specifically RaschOnline), and (2) determine the grade achieved by ChatGPT when compared to a normal sample.

METHODS

The capability of ChatGPT was evaluated using 10 items from the English tests conducted for Taiwan college entrance examinations in 2023. Under a Rasch model, 300 simulated students with normal distributions were simulated to compete with ChatGPT's responses. RaschOnline was used to generate 5 visual presentations, including item difficulties, differential item functioning, item characteristic curve, Wright map, and KIDMAP, to address the research objectives.

RESULTS

The findings revealed the following: (1) the difficulty of the 10 items increased in a monotonous pattern from easier to harder, represented by logits (-2.43, -1.78, -1.48, -0.64, -0.1, 0.33, 0.59, 1.34, 1.7, and 2.47); (2) evidence of differential item functioning was observed between gender groups for item 5 (P=.04); (3) item 5 displayed a good fit to the Rasch model (P=.61); (4) all items demonstrated a satisfactory fit to the Rasch model, indicated by Infit mean square errors below the threshold of 1.5; (5) no significant difference was found in the measures obtained between gender groups (P=.83); (6) a significant difference was observed among ability grades (P<.001); and (7) ChatGPT's capability was graded as A, surpassing grades B to E.

CONCLUSIONS

By using RaschOnline, this study provides evidence that ChatGPT possesses the ability to achieve a grade A when compared to a normal sample. It exhibits excellent proficiency in answering MCQs from the English tests conducted in 2023 for the Taiwan college entrance examinations.

Pilot Study of Large Language Models as an Age-Appropriate Explanatory Tool for Chronic Pediatric Conditions

There exists a gap in existing patient education resources for children with chronic conditions. This pilot study assesses large language models' (LLMs) capacity to deliver developmentally appropriate explanations of chronic conditions to pediatric patients. Two commonly used LLMs generated responses that accurately, appropriately, and effectively communicate complex medical information, making them a potentially valuable tool for enhancing patient understanding and engagement in clinical settings.

Chatbots as Patient Education Resources for Aesthetic Facial Plastic Surgery: Evaluation of ChatGPT and Google Bard Responses

Background: ChatGPT and Google Bard™ are popular artificial intelligence chatbots with utility for patients, including those undergoing aesthetic facial plastic surgery. Objective: To compare the accuracy and readability of chatbot-generated responses to patient education questions regarding aesthetic facial plastic surgery using a response accuracy scale and readability testing. Method: ChatGPT and Google Bard™ were asked 28 identical questions using four prompts: none, patient friendly, eighth-grade level, and references. Accuracy was assessed using Global Quality Scale (range: 1-5). Flesch-Kincaid grade level was calculated, and chatbot-provided references were analyzed for veracity. Results: Although 59.8% of responses were good quality (Global Quality Scale ≥4), ChatGPT generated more accurate responses than Google Bard™ on patient-friendly prompting (p < 0.001). Google Bard™ responses were of a significantly lower grade level than ChatGPT for all prompts (p < 0.05). Despite eighth-grade prompting, response grade level for both chatbots was high: ChatGPT (10.5 ± 1.8) and Google Bard™ (9.6 ± 1.3). Prompting for references yielded 108/108 of chatbot-generated references. Forty-one (38.0%) citations were legitimate. Twenty (18.5%) provided accurately reported information from the reference. Conclusion: Although ChatGPT produced more accurate responses and at a higher education level than Google Bard™, both chatbots provided responses above recommended grade levels for patients and failed to provide accurate references.

ChatGPT/GPT-4 (large language models): Opportunities and challenges of perspective in bariatric healthcare professionals

ChatGPT/GPT-4 is a conversational large language model (LLM) based on artificial intelligence (AI). The potential application of LLM as a virtual assistant for bariatric healthcare professionals in education and practice may be promising if relevant and valid issues are actively examined and addressed. In general medical terms, it is possible that AI models like ChatGPT/GPT-4 will be deeply integrated into medical scenarios, improving medical efficiency and quality, and allowing doctors more time to communicate with patients and implement personalized health management. Chatbots based on AI have great potential in bariatric healthcare and may play an important role in predicting and intervening in weight loss and obesity-related complications. However, given its potential limitations, we should carefully consider the medical, legal, ethical, data security, privacy, and liability issues arising from medical errors caused by ChatGPT/GPT-4. This concern also extends to ChatGPT/GPT -4's ability to justify wrong decisions, and there is an urgent need for appropriate guidelines and regulations to ensure the safe and responsible use of ChatGPT/GPT-4.

Evaluating the performance of Generative Pre-trained Transformer-4 (GPT-4) in standardizing radiology reports

OBJECTIVE

Radiology reporting is an essential component of clinical diagnosis and decision-making. With the advent of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models like GPT-4 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4), there is growing interest in evaluating their potential for optimizing or generating radiology reports. This study aimed to compare the quality and content of radiologist-generated and GPT-4 AI-generated radiology reports.

METHODS

A comparative study design was employed in the study, where a total of 100 anonymized radiology reports were randomly selected and analyzed. Each report was processed by GPT-4, resulting in the generation of a corresponding AI-generated report. Quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques were utilized to assess similarities and differences between the two sets of reports.

RESULTS

The AI-generated reports showed comparable quality to radiologist-generated reports in most categories. Significant differences were observed in clarity (p = 0.027), ease of understanding (p = 0.023), and structure (p = 0.050), favoring the AI-generated reports. AI-generated reports were more concise, with 34.53 fewer words and 174.22 fewer characters on average, but had greater variability in sentence length. Content similarity was high, with an average Cosine Similarity of 0.85, Sequence Matcher Similarity of 0.52, BLEU Score of 0.5008, and BERTScore F1 of 0.8775.

CONCLUSION

The results of this proof-of-concept study suggest that GPT-4 can be a reliable tool for generating standardized radiology reports, offering potential benefits such as improved efficiency, better communication, and simplified data extraction and analysis. However, limitations and ethical implications must be addressed to ensure the safe and effective implementation of this technology in clinical practice.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The findings of this study suggest that GPT-4 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4), an advanced AI model, has the potential to significantly contribute to the standardization and optimization of radiology reporting, offering improved efficiency and communication in clinical practice.

KEY POINTS

• Large language model-generated radiology reports exhibited high content similarity and moderate structural resemblance to radiologist-generated reports. • Performance metrics highlighted the strong matching of word selection and order, as well as high semantic similarity between AI and radiologist-generated reports. • Large language model demonstrated potential for generating standardized radiology reports, improving efficiency and communication in clinical settings.

Applications of natural language processing tools in the surgical journey

Background

Natural language processing tools are becoming increasingly adopted in multiple industries worldwide. They have shown promising results however their use in the field of surgery is under-recognised. Many trials have assessed these benefits in small settings with promising results before large scale adoption can be considered in surgery. This study aims to review the current research and insights into the potential for implementation of natural language processing tools into surgery.

Methods

A narrative review was conducted following a computer-assisted literature search on Medline, EMBASE and Google Scholar databases. Papers related to natural language processing tools and consideration into their use for surgery were considered.

Results

Current applications of natural language processing tools within surgery are limited. From the literature, there is evidence of potential improvement in surgical capability and service delivery, such as through the use of these technologies to streamline processes including surgical triaging, data collection and auditing, surgical communication and documentation. Additionally, there is potential to extend these capabilities to surgical academia to improve processes in surgical research and allow innovation in the development of educational resources. Despite these outcomes, the evidence to support these findings are challenged by small sample sizes with limited applicability to broader settings.

Conclusion

With the increasing adoption of natural language processing technology, such as in popular forms like ChatGPT, there has been increasing research in the use of these tools within surgery to improve surgical workflow and efficiency. This review highlights multifaceted applications of natural language processing within surgery, albeit with clear limitations due to the infancy of the infrastructure available to leverage these technologies. There remains room for more rigorous research into broader capability of natural language processing technology within the field of surgery and the need for cross-sectoral collaboration to understand the ways in which these algorithms can best be integrated.

ChatGPT and Beyond: An overview of the growing field of large language models and their use in ophthalmology

ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot built on large language models (LLMs), has rapidly gained popularity. The benefits and limitations of this transformative technology have been discussed across various fields, including medicine. The widespread availability of ChatGPT has enabled clinicians to study how these tools could be used for a variety of tasks such as generating differential diagnosis lists, organizing patient notes, and synthesizing literature for scientific research. LLMs have shown promising capabilities in ophthalmology by performing well on the Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program, providing fairly accurate responses to questions about retinal diseases, and in generating differential diagnoses list. There are current limitations to this technology, including the propensity of LLMs to "hallucinate", or confidently generate false information; their potential role in perpetuating biases in medicine; and the challenges in incorporating LLMs into research without allowing "AI-plagiarism" or publication of false information. In this paper, we provide a balanced overview of what LLMs are and introduce some of the LLMs that have been generated in the past few years. We discuss recent literature evaluating the role of these language models in medicine with a focus on ChatGPT. The field of AI is fast-paced, and new applications based on LLMs are being generated rapidly; therefore, it is important for ophthalmologists to be aware of how this technology works and how it may impact patient care. Here, we discuss the benefits, limitations, and future advancements of LLMs in patient care and research.

Does the Information Quality of ChatGPT Meet the Requirements of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery?

BACKGROUND

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, particularly through AI-based language models like ChatGPT, offers a promising avenue for enhancing patient education and healthcare delivery. This study aims to evaluate the quality of medical information provided by Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) regarding common orthopedic and trauma surgical procedures, assess its limitations, and explore its potential as a supplementary source for patient education.

METHODS

Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo version of ChatGPT, simulated patient information was generated for 20 orthopedic and trauma surgical procedures. The study utilized standardized information forms as a reference for evaluating ChatGPT's responses. The accuracy and quality of the provided information were assessed using a modified DISCERN instrument, and a global medical assessment was conducted to categorize the information's usefulness and reliability.

RESULTS

ChatGPT mentioned an average of 47% of relevant keywords across procedures, with a variance in the mention rate between 30.5% and 68.6%. The average modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) score was 2.4 out of 5, indicating a moderate to low quality of information. None of the ChatGPT-generated fact sheets were rated as "very useful," with 45% deemed "somewhat useful," 35% "not useful," and 20% classified as "dangerous." A positive correlation was found between higher mDISCERN scores and better physician ratings, suggesting that information quality directly impacts perceived utility.

CONCLUSION

While AI-based language models like ChatGPT hold significant promise for medical education and patient care, the current quality of information provided in the field of orthopedics and trauma surgery is suboptimal. Further development and refinement of AI sources and algorithms are necessary to improve the accuracy and reliability of medical information. This study underscores the need for ongoing research and development in AI applications in healthcare, emphasizing the critical role of accurate, high-quality information in patient education and informed consent processes.

Diagnostic power of ChatGPT 4 in distal radius fracture detection through wrist radiographs

Distal radius fractures rank among the most prevalent fractures in humans, necessitating accurate radiological imaging and interpretation for optimal diagnosis and treatment. In addition to human radiologists, artificial intelligence systems are increasingly employed for radiological assessments. Since 2023, ChatGPT 4 has offered image analysis capabilities, which can also be used for the analysis of wrist radiographs. This study evaluates the diagnostic power of ChatGPT 4 in identifying distal radius fractures, comparing it with a board-certified radiologist, a hand surgery resident, a medical student, and the well-established AI Gleamer BoneView™. Results demonstrate ChatGPT 4's good diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.98, diagnostic power (AUC) 0.93), surpassing the medical student (sensitivity 0.98, specificity 0.72, diagnostic power (AUC) 0.85; p = 0.04) significantly. Nevertheless, the diagnostic power of ChatGPT 4 lags behind the hand surgery resident (sensitivity 0.99, specificity 0.98, diagnostic power (AUC) 0.985; p = 0.014) and Gleamer BoneView™(sensitivity 1.00, specificity 0.98, diagnostic power (AUC) 0.99; p = 0.006). This study highlights the utility and potential applications of artificial intelligence in modern medicine, emphasizing ChatGPT 4 as a valuable tool for enhancing diagnostic capabilities in the field of medical imaging.

Proactive Polypharmacy Management Using Large Language Models: Opportunities to Enhance Geriatric Care

Polypharmacy remains an important challenge for patients with extensive medical complexity. Given the primary care shortage and the increasing aging population, effective polypharmacy management is crucial to manage the increasing burden of care. The capacity of large language model (LLM)-based artificial intelligence to aid in polypharmacy management has yet to be evaluated. Here, we evaluate ChatGPT's performance in polypharmacy management via its deprescribing decisions in standardized clinical vignettes. We inputted several clinical vignettes originally from a study of general practicioners' deprescribing decisions into ChatGPT 3.5, a publicly available LLM, and evaluated its capacity for yes/no binary deprescribing decisions as well as list-based prompts in which the model was prompted to choose which of several medications to deprescribe. We recorded ChatGPT responses to yes/no binary deprescribing prompts and the number and types of medications deprescribed. In yes/no binary deprescribing decisions, ChatGPT universally recommended deprescribing medications regardless of ADL status in patients with no overlying CVD history; in patients with CVD history, ChatGPT's answers varied by technical replicate. Total number of medications deprescribed ranged from 2.67 to 3.67 (out of 7) and did not vary with CVD status, but increased linearly with severity of ADL impairment. Among medication types, ChatGPT preferentially deprescribed pain medications. ChatGPT's deprescribing decisions vary along the axes of ADL status, CVD history, and medication type, indicating some concordance of internal logic between general practitioners and the model. These results indicate that specifically trained LLMs may provide useful clinical support in polypharmacy management for primary care physicians.

Potential Applications and Impact of ChatGPT in Radiology

Radiology has always gone hand-in-hand with technology and artificial intelligence (AI) is not new to the field. While various AI devices and algorithms have already been integrated in the daily clinical practice of radiology, with applications ranging from scheduling patient appointments to detecting and diagnosing certain clinical conditions on imaging, the use of natural language processing and large language model based software have been in discussion for a long time. Algorithms like ChatGPT can help in improving patient outcomes, increasing the efficiency of radiology interpretation, and aiding in the overall workflow of radiologists and here we discuss some of its potential applications.

ChatGPT vs UpToDate: comparative study of usefulness and reliability of Chatbot in common clinical presentations of otorhinolaryngology-head and neck surgery

PURPOSE

The usage of Chatbots as a kind of Artificial Intelligence in medicine is getting to increase in recent years. UpToDate® is another well-known search tool established on evidence-based knowledge and is used daily by doctors worldwide. In this study, we aimed to investigate the usefulness and reliability of ChatGPT compared to UpToDate in Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (ORL-HNS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ChatGPT-3.5 and UpToDate were interrogated for the management of 25 common clinical case scenarios (13 males/12 females) recruited from literature considering the daily observation at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology of Ege University Faculty of Medicine. Scientific references for the management were requested for each clinical case. The accuracy of the references in the ChatGPT answers was assessed on a 0-2 scale and the usefulness of the ChatGPT and UpToDate answers was assessed with 1-3 scores by reviewers. UpToDate and ChatGPT 3.5 responses were compared.

RESULTS

ChatGPT did not give references in some questions in contrast to UpToDate. Information on the ChatGPT was limited to 2021. UpToDate supported the paper with subheadings, tables, figures, and algorithms. The mean accuracy score of references in ChatGPT answers was 0.25-weak/unrelated. The median (Q1-Q3) was 1.00 (1.25-2.00) for ChatGPT and 2.63 (2.75-3.00) for UpToDate, the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). UpToDate was observed more useful and reliable than ChatGPT.

CONCLUSIONS

ChatGPT has the potential to support the physicians to find out the information but our results suggest that ChatGPT needs to be improved to increase the usefulness and reliability of medical evidence-based knowledge.

Current applications and future potential of ChatGPT in radiology: A systematic review

This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the current utilization and future potential of ChatGPT, an AI-based chat model, in the field of radiology. The primary focus is on its role in enhancing decision-making processes, optimizing workflow efficiency, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and teaching within healthcare. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases. Key aspects, such as its impact on complex decision-making, workflow enhancement and collaboration, were assessed. Limitations and challenges associated with ChatGPT implementation were also examined. Overall, six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. All studies were prospective in nature. A total of 551 chatGPT (version 3.0 to 4.0) assessment events were included in our analysis. Considering the generation of academic papers, ChatGPT was found to output data inaccuracies 80% of the time. When ChatGPT was asked questions regarding common interventional radiology procedures, it contained entirely incorrect information 45% of the time. ChatGPT was seen to better answer US board-style questions when lower order thinking was required (P = 0.002). Improvements were seen between chatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 in regard to imaging questions with accuracy rates of 61 versus 85%(P = 0.009). ChatGPT was observed to have an average translational ability score of 4.27/5 on the Likert scale regarding CT and MRI findings. ChatGPT demonstrates substantial potential to augment decision-making and optimizing workflow. While ChatGPT's promise is evident, thorough evaluation and validation are imperative before widespread adoption in the field of radiology.

Innovations in Medicine: Exploring ChatGPT's Impact on Rare Disorder Management

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the field of medicine, announcing a new era of innovation and efficiency. Among AI programs designed for general use, ChatGPT holds a prominent position, using an innovative language model developed by OpenAI. Thanks to the use of deep learning techniques, ChatGPT stands out as an exceptionally viable tool, renowned for generating human-like responses to queries. Various medical specialties, including rheumatology, oncology, psychiatry, internal medicine, and ophthalmology, have been explored for ChatGPT integration, with pilot studies and trials revealing each field's potential benefits and challenges. However, the field of genetics and genetic counseling, as well as that of rare disorders, represents an area suitable for exploration, with its complex datasets and the need for personalized patient care. In this review, we synthesize the wide range of potential applications for ChatGPT in the medical field, highlighting its benefits and limitations. We pay special attention to rare and genetic disorders, aiming to shed light on the future roles of AI-driven chatbots in healthcare. Our goal is to pave the way for a healthcare system that is more knowledgeable, efficient, and centered around patient needs.

Preliminary Evidence of the Use of Generative AI in Health Care Clinical Services: Systematic Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Generative artificial intelligence tools and applications (GenAI) are being increasingly used in health care. Physicians, specialists, and other providers have started primarily using GenAI as an aid or tool to gather knowledge, provide information, train, or generate suggestive dialogue between physicians and patients or between physicians and patients' families or friends. However, unless the use of GenAI is oriented to be helpful in clinical service encounters that can improve the accuracy of diagnosis, treatment, and patient outcomes, the expected potential will not be achieved. As adoption continues, it is essential to validate the effectiveness of the infusion of GenAI as an intelligent technology in service encounters to understand the gap in actual clinical service use of GenAI.

OBJECTIVE

This study synthesizes preliminary evidence on how GenAI assists, guides, and automates clinical service rendering and encounters in health care The review scope was limited to articles published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

METHODS

We screened and selected 0.38% (161/42,459) of articles published between January 1, 2020, and May 31, 2023, identified from PubMed. We followed the protocols outlined in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to select highly relevant studies with at least 1 element on clinical use, evaluation, and validation to provide evidence of GenAI use in clinical services. The articles were classified based on their relevance to clinical service functions or activities using the descriptive and analytical information presented in the articles.

RESULTS

Of 161 articles, 141 (87.6%) reported using GenAI to assist services through knowledge access, collation, and filtering. GenAI was used for disease detection (19/161, 11.8%), diagnosis (14/161, 8.7%), and screening processes (12/161, 7.5%) in the areas of radiology (17/161, 10.6%), cardiology (12/161, 7.5%), gastrointestinal medicine (4/161, 2.5%), and diabetes (6/161, 3.7%). The literature synthesis in this study suggests that GenAI is mainly used for diagnostic processes, improvement of diagnosis accuracy, and screening and diagnostic purposes using knowledge access. Although this solves the problem of knowledge access and may improve diagnostic accuracy, it is oriented toward higher value creation in health care.

CONCLUSIONS

GenAI informs rather than assisting or automating clinical service functions in health care. There is potential in clinical service, but it has yet to be actualized for GenAI. More clinical service-level evidence that GenAI is used to streamline some functions or provides more automated help than only information retrieval is needed. To transform health care as purported, more studies related to GenAI applications must automate and guide human-performed services and keep up with the optimism that forward-thinking health care organizations will take advantage of GenAI.

Application of generative language models to orthopaedic practice

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether large language models (LLMs) Generated Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-3 and ChatGPT can write clinical letters and predict management plans for common orthopaedic scenarios.

DESIGN

Fifteen scenarios were generated and ChatGPT and GPT-3 prompted to write clinical letters and separately generate management plans for identical scenarios with plans removed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Letters were assessed for readability using the Readable Tool. Accuracy of letters and management plans were assessed by three independent orthopaedic surgery clinicians.

RESULTS

Both models generated complete letters for all scenarios after single prompting. Readability was compared using Flesch-Kincade Grade Level (ChatGPT: 8.77 (SD 0.918); GPT-3: 8.47 (SD 0.982)), Flesch Readability Ease (ChatGPT: 58.2 (SD 4.00); GPT-3: 59.3 (SD 6.98)), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index (ChatGPT: 11.6 (SD 0.755); GPT-3: 11.4 (SD 1.01)), and reach (ChatGPT: 81.2%; GPT-3: 80.3%). ChatGPT produced more accurate letters (8.7/10 (SD 0.60) vs 7.3/10 (SD 1.41), p=0.024) and management plans (7.9/10 (SD 0.63) vs 6.8/10 (SD 1.06), p<0.001) than GPT-3. However, both LLMs sometimes omitted key information or added additional guidance which was at worst inaccurate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that LLMs are effective for generation of clinical letters. With little prompting, they are readable and mostly accurate. However, they are not consistent, and include inappropriate omissions or insertions. Furthermore, management plans produced by LLMs are generic but often accurate. In the future, a healthcare specific language model trained on accurate and secure data could provide an excellent tool for increasing the efficiency of clinicians through summarisation of large volumes of data into a single clinical letter.

Assessing the research landscape and clinical utility of large language models: a scoping review

IMPORTANCE

Large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI's ChatGPT are powerful generative systems that rapidly synthesize natural language responses. Research on LLMs has revealed their potential and pitfalls, especially in clinical settings. However, the evolving landscape of LLM research in medicine has left several gaps regarding their evaluation, application, and evidence base.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to (1) summarize current research evidence on the accuracy and efficacy of LLMs in medical applications, (2) discuss the ethical, legal, logistical, and socioeconomic implications of LLM use in clinical settings, (3) explore barriers and facilitators to LLM implementation in healthcare, (4) propose a standardized evaluation framework for assessing LLMs' clinical utility, and (5) identify evidence gaps and propose future research directions for LLMs in clinical applications.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

We screened 4,036 records from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv from January 2023 (inception of the search) to June 26, 2023 for English-language papers and analyzed findings from 55 worldwide studies. Quality of evidence was reported based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine recommendations.

FINDINGS

Our results demonstrate that LLMs show promise in compiling patient notes, assisting patients in navigating the healthcare system, and to some extent, supporting clinical decision-making when combined with human oversight. However, their utilization is limited by biases in training data that may harm patients, the generation of inaccurate but convincing information, and ethical, legal, socioeconomic, and privacy concerns. We also identified a lack of standardized methods for evaluating LLMs' effectiveness and feasibility.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review thus highlights potential future directions and questions to address these limitations and to further explore LLMs' potential in enhancing healthcare delivery.

Ethical Considerations of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Examining the Role of Generative Pretrained Transformer-4

The integration of artificial intelligence technologies, such as large language models (LLMs), in health care holds potential for improved efficiency and decision support. However, ethical concerns must be addressed before widespread adoption. This article focuses on the ethical principles surrounding the use of Generative Pretrained Transformer-4 and its conversational model, ChatGPT, in healthcare settings. One concern is potential inaccuracies in generated content. LLMs can produce believable yet incorrect information, risking errors in medical records. Opacity of training data exacerbates this, hindering accuracy assessment. To mitigate, LLMs should train on precise, validated medical data sets. Model bias is another critical concern because LLMs may perpetuate biases from their training, leading to medically inaccurate and discriminatory responses. Sampling, programming, and compliance biases contribute necessitating careful consideration to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes. Privacy is paramount in health care, using public LLMs raises risks. Strict data-sharing agreements and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant training protocols are necessary to protect patient privacy. Although artificial intelligence technologies offer promising opportunities in health care, careful consideration of ethical principles is crucial. Addressing concerns of inaccuracy, bias, and privacy will ensure responsible and patient-centered implementation, benefiting both healthcare professionals and patients.

How Reliable is ChatGPT as a Novel Consultant in Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology?

Objective

The study aimed to investigate the reliability of ChatGPT's answers to medical questions, including those sourced from patients and guide recommendations. The focus was on evaluating ChatGPT's accuracy in responding to various types of infectious disease questions.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted using 200 questions sourced from social media, experts, and guidelines related to various infectious diseases like urinary tract infection, pneumonia, HIV, various types of hepatitis, COVID-19, skin infections, and tuberculosis. The questions were arranged for clarity and consistency by excluding repetitive or unclear ones. The answers were based on guidelines from reputable sources like the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), European Association for the Study of Liver Disease (EASL) and Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) AIDSinfo. According to the scoring system, completely correct answers were given 1-point, and completely incorrect ones were given 4-points. To assess reproducibility, each question was posed twice on separate computers. Repeatability was determined by the consistency of the answers' scores.

Results

In the study, ChatGPT was posed with 200 questions: 107 from social media platforms and 93 from guidelines. The questions covered a range of topics: urinary tract infections (n=18 questions), pneumonia (n=22), HIV (n=39), hepatitis B and C (n=53), COVID-19 (n=11), skin and soft tissue infections (n=38), and tuberculosis (n=19). The lowest accuracy was 72% for urinary tract infections. ChatGPT answered 92% of social media platform questions correctly (scored 1-point) versus 69% of guideline questions (p=0.001; OR=5.48, 95% CI=2.29-13.11).

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence is widely used in the medical field by both healthcare professionals and patients. Although ChatGPT answers questions from social media platforms quite properly, we recommend that healthcare professionals be conscientious when using it.

Development and evaluation of a program based on a generative pre-trained transformer model from a public natural language processing platform for efficiency enhancement in post-procedural quality control of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Post-procedural quality control of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is emphasized in guidelines. However, this process can be tedious and time-consuming. Recently, a pre-training model called generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) on a public natural language processing platform has emerged and garnered significant attention, whose capabilities align well with the post-procedural quality control process and have the potential to streamline it. Therefore, we developed a simple program utilizing this platform and evaluated its performance.

METHODS

Esophageal ESDs were retrospectively included. The manual quality control process was performed and act as reference standard. GPT's prompt was optimized through multiple iterations. A Python program was developed to automatically submit prompt with pathological report of each ESD procedure and collect quality control information provided by GPT. Its performance on quality control was evaluated with accuracy, precision, recall, and F-1 score.

RESULTS

165 cases were involved into the dataset, of which 5 were utilized as the prompt optimization dataset and 160 as the validation dataset. Definitive prompt was achieved through seven iterations. Time spent on the validation dataset by GPT was 13.47 ± 2.43 min. Accuracies of pathological diagnosis, invasion depth, horizontal margin, vertical margin, vascular invasion, and lymphatic invasion of the quality control program were (0.940, 0.952) (95% CI), (0.925, 0.945) (95% CI), 0.931, 1.0, and 1.0, respectively. Precisions were (0.965, 0.969) (95% CI), (0.934, 0.954) (95% CI), and 0.957 for pathological diagnosis, invasion depth, and horizontal margin, respectively. Recalls were (0.940, 0.952) (95% CI), (0.925, 0.945) (95% CI), and 0.931 for factors as mentioned, respectively. F1-score were (0.945, 0.957) (95% CI), (0.928, 0.948) (95% CI), and 0.941 for factors as mentioned, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This quality control program was qualified of post-procedural quality control of esophageal ESDs. GPT can be easily applied to this quality control process and reduce workload of the endoscopists.

Evaluating ChatGPT's Capabilities on Orthopedic Training Examinations: An Analysis of New Image Processing Features

Introduction The efficacy of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) models like ChatGPT into the medical field, specifically orthopedic surgery, has yet to be fully determined. The most recent adaptation of ChatGPT that has yet to be explored is its image analysis capabilities. This study assesses ChatGPT's performance in answering Orthopedic In-Training Examination (OITE) questions, including those that require image analysis. Methods Questions from the 2014, 2015, 2021, and 2022 AAOS OITE were screened for inclusion. All questions without images were entered into ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 twice. Questions that necessitated the use of images were only entered into ChatGPT 4.0 twice, as this is the only version of the system that can analyze images. The responses were recorded and compared to AAOS's correct answers, evaluating the AI's accuracy and precision. Results A total of 940 questions were included in the final analysis (457 questions with images and 483 questions without images). ChatGPT 4.0 performed significantly better on questions that did not require image analysis (67.81% vs 47.59%, p<0.001). Discussion While the use of AI in orthopedics is an intriguing possibility, this evaluation demonstrates how, even with the addition of image processing capabilities, ChatGPT still falls short in terms of its accuracy. As AI technology evolves, ongoing research is vital to harness AI's potential effectively, ensuring it complements rather than attempts to replace the nuanced skills of orthopedic surgeons.

Can ChatGPT outperform a neurosurgical trainee? A prospective comparative study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the performance of ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM), with human neurosurgical applicants in a neurosurgical national selection interview, to assess the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) and LLMs in healthcare and provide insights into their integration into the field.

METHODS

In a prospective comparative study, a set of neurosurgical national selection-style interview questions were asked to eight human participants and ChatGPT in an online interview. All participants were doctors currently practicing in the UK who had applied for a neurosurgical National Training Number. Interviews were recorded, anonymised, and scored by three neurosurgical consultants with experience as interviewers for national selection. Answers provided by ChatGPT were used as a template for a virtual interview. Interview transcripts were subsequently scored by neurosurgical consultants using criteria utilised in real national selection interviews. Overall interview score and subdomain scores were compared between human participants and ChatGPT.

RESULTS

For overall score, ChatGPT fell behind six human competitors and did not achieve a mean score higher than any individuals who achieved training positions. Several factors, including factual inaccuracies and deviations from expected structure and style may have contributed to ChatGPT's underperformance.

CONCLUSIONS

LLMs such as ChatGPT have huge potential for integration in healthcare. However, this study emphasises the need for further development to address limitations and challenges. While LLMs have not surpassed human performance yet, collaboration between humans and AI systems holds promise for the future of healthcare.

Progression of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot (ChatGPT) for Pediatric Cardiology Educational Knowledge Assessment

Artificial intelligence chatbots, like ChatGPT, have become powerful tools that are disrupting how humans interact with technology. The potential uses within medicine are vast. In medical education, these chatbots have shown improvements, in a short time span, in generalized medical examinations. We evaluated the overall performance and improvement between ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 in a test of pediatric cardiology knowledge. ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0 were used to answer text-based multiple-choice questions derived from a Pediatric Cardiology Board Review textbook. Each chatbot was given an 88 question test, subcategorized into 11 topics. We excluded questions with modalities other than text (sound clips or images). Statistical analysis was done using an unpaired two-tailed t-test. Of the same 88 questions, ChatGPT 4.0 answered 66% of the questions correctly (n = 58/88) which was significantly greater (p < 0.0001) than ChatGPT 3.5, which only answered 38% (33/88). The ChatGPT 4.0 version also did better on each subspeciality topic as compared to ChatGPT 3.5. While acknowledging that ChatGPT does not yet offer subspecialty level knowledge in pediatric cardiology, the performance in pediatric cardiology educational assessments showed a considerable improvement in a short period of time between ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0.

Accuracy of Information and References Using ChatGPT-3 for Retrieval of Clinical Radiological Information

Purpose: To assess the accuracy of answers provided by ChatGPT-3 when prompted with questions from the daily routine of radiologists and to evaluate the text response when ChatGPT-3 was prompted to provide references for a given answer. Methods: ChatGPT-3 (San Francisco, OpenAI) is an artificial intelligence chatbot based on a large language model (LLM) that has been designed to generate human-like text. A total of 88 questions were submitted to ChatGPT-3 using textual prompt. These 88 questions were equally dispersed across 8 subspecialty areas of radiology. The responses provided by ChatGPT-3 were assessed for correctness by cross-checking them with peer-reviewed, PubMed-listed references. In addition, the references provided by ChatGPT-3 were evaluated for authenticity. Results: A total of 59 of 88 responses (67%) to radiological questions were correct, while 29 responses (33%) had errors. Out of 343 references provided, only 124 references (36.2%) were available through internet search, while 219 references (63.8%) appeared to be generated by ChatGPT-3. When examining the 124 identified references, only 47 references (37.9%) were considered to provide enough background to correctly answer 24 questions (37.5%). Conclusion: In this pilot study, ChatGPT-3 provided correct responses to questions from the daily clinical routine of radiologists in only about two thirds, while the remainder of responses contained errors. The majority of provided references were not found and only a minority of the provided references contained the correct information to answer the question. Caution is advised when using ChatGPT-3 to retrieve radiological information.

Awareness and Use of ChatGPT and Large Language Models: A Prospective Cross-sectional Global Survey in Urology

BACKGROUND

Since its release in November 2022, ChatGPT has captivated society and shown potential for various aspects of health care.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate potential use of ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM), in urology by gathering opinions from urologists worldwide.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An open web-based survey was distributed via social media and e-mail chains to urologists between April 20, 2023 and May 5, 2023. Participants were asked to answer questions related to their knowledge and experience with artificial intelligence, as well as their opinions of potential use of ChatGPT/LLMs in research and clinical practice.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data are reported as the mean and standard deviation for continuous variables, and the frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Charts and tables are used as appropriate, with descriptions of the chart types and the measures used. The data are reported in accordance with the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 456 individuals completed the survey (64% completion rate). Nearly half (47.7%) reported that they use ChatGPT/LLMs in their academic practice, with fewer using the technology in clinical practice (19.8%). More than half (62.2%) believe there are potential ethical concerns when using ChatGPT for scientific or academic writing, and 53% reported that they have experienced limitations when using ChatGPT in academic practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Urologists recognise the potential of ChatGPT/LLMs in research but have concerns regarding ethics and patient acceptance. There is a desire for regulations and guidelines to ensure appropriate use. In addition, measures should be taken to establish rules and guidelines to maximise safety and efficiency when using this novel technology.

PATIENT SUMMARY

A survey asked 456 urologists from around the world about using an artificial intelligence tool called ChatGPT in their work. Almost half of them use ChatGPT for research, but not many use it for patients care. The resonders think ChatGPT could be helpful, but they worry about problems like ethics and want rules to make sure it's used safely.

Ethical Concerns About ChatGPT in Healthcare: A Useful Tool or the Tombstone of Original and Reflective Thinking?

Artificial intelligence (AI), the uprising technology of computer science aiming to create digital systems with human behavior and intelligence, seems to have invaded almost every field of modern life. Launched in November 2022, ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) is a textual AI application capable of creating human-like responses characterized by original language and high coherence. Although AI-based language models have demonstrated impressive capabilities in healthcare, ChatGPT has received controversial annotations from the scientific and academic communities. This chatbot already appears to have a massive impact as an educational tool for healthcare professionals and transformative potential for clinical practice and could lead to dramatic changes in scientific research. Nevertheless, rational concerns were raised regarding whether the pre-trained, AI-generated text would be a menace not only for original thinking and new scientific ideas but also for academic and research integrity, as it gets more and more difficult to distinguish its AI origin due to the coherence and fluency of the produced text. This short review aims to summarize the potential applications and the consequential implications of ChatGPT in the three critical pillars of medicine: education, research, and clinical practice. In addition, this paper discusses whether the current use of this chatbot is in compliance with the ethical principles for the safe use of AI in healthcare, as determined by the World Health Organization. Finally, this review highlights the need for an updated ethical framework and the increased vigilance of healthcare stakeholders to harvest the potential benefits and limit the imminent dangers of this new innovative technology.

Advancing equitable and personalized cancer care: Novel applications and priorities of artificial intelligence for fairness and inclusivity in the patient care workflow

Patient care workflows are highly multimodal and intertwined: the intersection of data outputs provided from different disciplines and in different formats remains one of the main challenges of modern oncology. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize the current clinical practice of oncology owing to advancements in digitalization, database expansion, computational technologies, and algorithmic innovations that facilitate discernment of complex relationships in multimodal data. Within oncology, radiation therapy (RT) represents an increasingly complex working procedure, involving many labor-intensive and operator-dependent tasks. In this context, AI has gained momentum as a powerful tool to standardize treatment performance and reduce inter-observer variability in a time-efficient manner. This review explores the hurdles associated with the development, implementation, and maintenance of AI platforms and highlights current measures in place to address them. In examining AI's role in oncology workflows, we underscore that a thorough and critical consideration of these challenges is the only way to ensure equitable and unbiased care delivery, ultimately serving patients' survival and quality of life.

Assessing ChatGPT's orthopedic in-service training exam performance and applicability in the field

BACKGROUND

ChatGPT has gained widespread attention for its ability to understand and provide human-like responses to inputs. However, few works have focused on its use in Orthopedics. This study assessed ChatGPT's performance on the Orthopedic In-Service Training Exam (OITE) and evaluated its decision-making process to determine whether adoption as a resource in the field is practical.

METHODS

ChatGPT's performance on three OITE exams was evaluated through inputting multiple choice questions. Questions were classified by their orthopedic subject area. Yearly, OITE technical reports were used to gauge scores against resident physicians. ChatGPT's rationales were compared with testmaker explanations using six different groups denoting answer accuracy and logic consistency. Variables were analyzed using contingency table construction and Chi-squared analyses.

RESULTS

Of 635 questions, 360 were useable as inputs (56.7%). ChatGPT-3.5 scored 55.8%, 47.7%, and 54% for the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively. Of 190 correct outputs, 179 provided a consistent logic (94.2%). Of 170 incorrect outputs, 133 provided an inconsistent logic (78.2%). Significant associations were found between test topic and correct answer (p = 0.011), and type of logic used and tested topic (p =  < 0.001). Basic Science and Sports had adjusted residuals greater than 1.96. Basic Science and correct, no logic; Basic Science and incorrect, inconsistent logic; Sports and correct, no logic; and Sports and incorrect, inconsistent logic; had adjusted residuals greater than 1.96.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on annual OITE technical reports for resident physicians, ChatGPT-3.5 performed around the PGY-1 level. When answering correctly, it displayed congruent reasoning with testmakers. When answering incorrectly, it exhibited some understanding of the correct answer. It outperformed in Basic Science and Sports, likely due to its ability to output rote facts. These findings suggest that it lacks the fundamental capabilities to be a comprehensive tool in Orthopedic Surgery in its current form.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

The Genie Is Out of the Bottle: What ChatGPT Can and Cannot Do for Medical Professionals

ChatGPT is a cutting-edge artificial intelligence technology that was released for public use in November 2022. Its rapid adoption has raised questions about capabilities, limitations, and risks. This article presents an overview of ChatGPT, and it highlights the current state of this technology for the medical field. The article seeks to provide a balanced perspective on what the model can and cannot do in three specific domains: clinical practice, research, and medical education. It also provides suggestions on how to optimize the use of this tool.

Large language models and the future of rheumatology: assessing impact and emerging opportunities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Large language models (LLMs) have grown rapidly in size and capabilities as more training data and compute power has become available. Since the release of ChatGPT in late 2022, there has been growing interest and exploration around potential applications of LLM technology. Numerous examples and pilot studies demonstrating the capabilities of these tools have emerged across several domains. For rheumatology professionals and patients, LLMs have the potential to transform current practices in medicine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have begun exploring capabilities of LLMs that can assist rheumatologists in clinical practice, research, and medical education, though applications are still emerging. In clinical settings, LLMs have shown promise in assist healthcare professionals enabling more personalized medicine or generating routine documentation like notes and letters. Challenges remain around integrating LLMs into clinical workflows, accuracy of the LLMs and ensuring patient data confidentiality. In research, early experiments demonstrate LLMs can offer analysis of datasets, with quality control as a critical piece. Lastly, LLMs could supplement medical education by providing personalized learning experiences and integration into established curriculums.

SUMMARY

As these powerful tools continue evolving at a rapid pace, rheumatology professionals should stay informed on how they may impact the field.

Evaluation of the Performance of Generative AI Large Language Models ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing Chat in Supporting Evidence-Based Dentistry: Comparative Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

The increasing application of generative artificial intelligence large language models (LLMs) in various fields, including dentistry, raises questions about their accuracy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to comparatively evaluate the answers provided by 4 LLMs, namely Bard (Google LLC), ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI), and Bing Chat (Microsoft Corp), to clinically relevant questions from the field of dentistry.

METHODS

The LLMs were queried with 20 open-type, clinical dentistry-related questions from different disciplines, developed by the respective faculty of the School of Dentistry, European University Cyprus. The LLMs' answers were graded 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum) points against strong, traditionally collected scientific evidence, such as guidelines and consensus statements, using a rubric, as if they were examination questions posed to students, by 2 experienced faculty members. The scores were statistically compared to identify the best-performing model using the Friedman and Wilcoxon tests. Moreover, the evaluators were asked to provide a qualitative evaluation of the comprehensiveness, scientific accuracy, clarity, and relevance of the LLMs' answers.

RESULTS

Overall, no statistically significant difference was detected between the scores given by the 2 evaluators; therefore, an average score was computed for every LLM. Although ChatGPT-4 statistically outperformed ChatGPT-3.5 (P=.008), Bing Chat (P=.049), and Bard (P=.045), all models occasionally exhibited inaccuracies, generality, outdated content, and a lack of source references. The evaluators noted instances where the LLMs delivered irrelevant information, vague answers, or information that was not fully accurate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that although LLMs hold promising potential as an aid in the implementation of evidence-based dentistry, their current limitations can lead to potentially harmful health care decisions if not used judiciously. Therefore, these tools should not replace the dentist's critical thinking and in-depth understanding of the subject matter. Further research, clinical validation, and model improvements are necessary for these tools to be fully integrated into dental practice. Dental practitioners must be aware of the limitations of LLMs, as their imprudent use could potentially impact patient care. Regulatory measures should be established to oversee the use of these evolving technologies.

Empathy and Equity: Key Considerations for Large Language Model Adoption in Health Care

The growing presence of large language models (LLMs) in health care applications holds significant promise for innovative advancements in patient care. However, concerns about ethical implications and potential biases have been raised by various stakeholders. Here, we evaluate the ethics of LLMs in medicine along 2 key axes: empathy and equity. We outline the importance of these factors in novel models of care and develop frameworks for addressing these alongside LLM deployment.

Exploring the Potential of ChatGPT-4 in Predicting Refractive Surgery Categorizations: Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Refractive surgery research aims to optimally precategorize patients by their suitability for various types of surgery. Recent advances have led to the development of artificial intelligence-powered algorithms, including machine learning approaches, to assess risks and enhance workflow. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI LP) have emerged as potential general artificial intelligence tools that can assist across various disciplines, possibly including refractive surgery decision-making. However, their actual capabilities in precategorizing refractive surgery patients based on real-world parameters remain unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

This exploratory study aimed to validate ChatGPT-4's capabilities in precategorizing refractive surgery patients based on commonly used clinical parameters. The goal was to assess whether ChatGPT-4's performance when categorizing batch inputs is comparable to those made by a refractive surgeon. A simple binary set of categories (patient suitable for laser refractive surgery or not) as well as a more detailed set were compared.

METHODS

Data from 100 consecutive patients from a refractive clinic were anonymized and analyzed. Parameters included age, sex, manifest refraction, visual acuity, and various corneal measurements and indices from Scheimpflug imaging. This study compared ChatGPT-4's performance with a clinician's categorizations using Cohen κ coefficient, a chi-square test, a confusion matrix, accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve.

RESULTS

A statistically significant noncoincidental accordance was found between ChatGPT-4 and the clinician's categorizations with a Cohen κ coefficient of 0.399 for 6 categories (95% CI 0.256-0.537) and 0.610 for binary categorization (95% CI 0.372-0.792). The model showed temporal instability and response variability, however. The chi-square test on 6 categories indicated an association between the 2 raters' distributions (χ²5=94.7, P<.001). Here, the accuracy was 0.68, precision 0.75, recall 0.68, and F1-score 0.70. For 2 categories, the accuracy was 0.88, precision 0.88, recall 0.88, F1-score 0.88, and area under the curve 0.79.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that ChatGPT-4 exhibits potential as a precategorization tool in refractive surgery, showing promising agreement with clinician categorizations. However, its main limitations include, among others, dependency on solely one human rater, small sample size, the instability and variability of ChatGPT's (OpenAI LP) output between iterations and nontransparency of the underlying models. The results encourage further exploration into the application of LLMs like ChatGPT-4 in health care, particularly in decision-making processes that require understanding vast clinical data. Future research should focus on defining the model's accuracy with prompt and vignette standardization, detecting confounding factors, and comparing to other versions of ChatGPT-4 and other LLMs to pave the way for larger-scale validation and real-world implementation.

Evaluating ChatGPT as an adjunct for the multidisciplinary tumor board decision-making in primary breast cancer cases

BACKGROUND

As the available information about breast cancer is growing every day, the decision-making process for the therapy is getting more complex. ChatGPT as a transformer-based language model possesses the ability to write scientific articles and pass medical exams. But is it able to support the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) in the planning of the therapy of patients with breast cancer?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a pilot study on 10 consecutive cases of breast cancer patients discussed in MDT at our department in January 2023. Included were patients with a primary diagnosis of early breast cancer. The recommendation of MDT was compared with the recommendation of the ChatGPT for particular patients and the clinical score of the agreement was calculated.

RESULTS

Results showed that ChatGPT provided mostly general answers regarding chemotherapy, breast surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and antibody therapy. It was able to identify risk factors for hereditary breast cancer and point out the elderly patient indicated for chemotherapy to evaluate the cost/benefit effect. ChatGPT wrongly identified the patient with Her2 1 + and 2 + (FISH negative) as in need of therapy with an antibody and called endocrine therapy "hormonal treatment".

CONCLUSIONS

Support of artificial intelligence by finding individualized and personalized therapy for our patients in the time of rapidly expanding amount of information is looking for the ways in the clinical routine. ChatGPT has the potential to find its spot in clinical medicine, but the current version is not able to provide specific recommendations for the therapy of patients with primary breast cancer.

ChatGPT for Automated Writing Evaluation in Scholarly Writing Instruction

BACKGROUND

Effective strategies for developing scholarly writing skills in postsecondary nursing students are needed. Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools, such as ChatGPT, for automated writing evaluation (AWE) hold promise for mitigating challenges associated with scholarly writing instruction in nursing education. This article explores the suitability of ChatGPT for AWE in writing instruction.

METHOD

ChatGPT feedback on 42 nursing student texts from the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers was assessed. Assessment criteria were derived from recent AWE research.

RESULTS

ChatGPT demonstrated utility as an AWE tool. Its scoring performance demonstrated stricter grading than human raters, related feedback to macro-level writing features, and supported multiple submissions and learner autonomy.

CONCLUSION

Despite concerns surrounding GAI in academia, educators can accelerate the feedback process without increasing their workload, and students can receive individualized feedback by incorporating AWE provided by ChatGPT into the writing process. [J Nurs Educ. 2023;62(12):721-727.].

An overview of the capabilities of ChatGPT for medical writing and its implications for academic integrity

The artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT, which is based on a large language model (LLM), is gaining popularity in academic institutions, notably in the medical field. This article provides a brief overview of the capabilities of ChatGPT for medical writing and its implications for academic integrity. It provides a list of AI generative tools, common use of AI generative tools for medical writing, and provides a list of AI generative text detection tools. It also provides recommendations for policymakers, information professionals, and medical faculty for the constructive use of AI generative tools and related technology. It also highlights the role of health sciences librarians and educators in protecting students from generating text through ChatGPT in their academic work.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on ChatGPT and its utilization in medical and dental research

Since its release, ChatGPT has taken the world by storm with its utilization in various fields of life. This review's main goal was to offer a thorough and fact-based evaluation of ChatGPT's potential as a tool for medical and dental research, which could direct subsequent research and influence clinical practices.

METHODS

Different online databases were scoured for relevant articles that were in accordance with the study objectives. A team of reviewers was assembled to devise a proper methodological framework for inclusion of articles and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

11 descriptive studies were considered for this review that evaluated the accuracy of ChatGPT in answering medical queries related to different domains such as systematic reviews, cancer, liver diseases, diagnostic imaging, education, and COVID-19 vaccination. The studies reported different accuracy ranges, from 18.3 % to 100 %, across various datasets and specialties. The meta-analysis showed an odds ratio (OR) of 2.25 and a relative risk (RR) of 1.47 with a 95 % confidence interval (CI), indicating that the accuracy of ChatGPT in providing correct responses was significantly higher compared to the total responses for queries. However, significant heterogeneity was present among the studies, suggesting considerable variability in the effect sizes across the included studies.

CONCLUSION

The observations indicate that ChatGPT has the ability to provide appropriate solutions to questions in the medical and dentistry areas, but researchers and doctors should cautiously assess its responses because they might not always be dependable. Overall, the importance of this study rests in shedding light on ChatGPT's accuracy in the medical and dentistry fields and emphasizing the need for additional investigation to enhance its performance. © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Evaluating the Performance of Different Large Language Models on Health Consultation and Patient Education in Urolithiasis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of four large language models (LLMs) (Claude, Bard, ChatGPT4, and New Bing) that have large user bases and significant social attention, in the context of medical consultation and patient education in urolithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, we developed a questionnaire consisting of 21 questions and 2 clinical scenarios related to urolithiasis. Subsequently, clinical consultations were simulated for each of the four models to assess their responses to the questions. Urolithiasis experts then evaluated the model responses in terms of accuracy, comprehensiveness, ease of understanding, human care, and clinical case analysis ability based on a predesigned 5-point Likert scale. Visualization and statistical analyses were then employed to compare the four models and evaluate their performance.

RESULTS

All models yielded satisfying performance, except for Bard, who failed to provide a valid response to Question 13. Claude consistently scored the highest in all dimensions compared with the other three models. ChatGPT4 ranked second in accuracy, with a relatively stable output across multiple tests, but shortcomings were observed in empathy and human caring. Bard exhibited the lowest accuracy and overall performance. Claude and ChatGPT4 both had a high capacity to analyze clinical cases of urolithiasis. Overall, Claude emerged as the best performer in urolithiasis consultations and education.

CONCLUSION

Claude demonstrated superior performance compared with the other three in urolithiasis consultation and education. This study highlights the remarkable potential of LLMs in medical health consultations and patient education, although professional review, further evaluation, and modifications are still required.

Evaluation of the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on the Polish Medical Final Examination

The study aimed to evaluate the performance of two Large Language Models (LLMs): ChatGPT (based on GPT-3.5) and GPT-4 with two temperature parameter values, on the Polish Medical Final Examination (MFE). The models were tested on three editions of the MFE from: Spring 2022, Autumn 2022, and Spring 2023 in two language versions-English and Polish. The accuracies of both models were compared and the relationships between the correctness of answers with the answer's metrics were investigated. The study demonstrated that GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 in all three examinations regardless of the language used. GPT-4 achieved mean accuracies of 79.7% for both Polish and English versions, passing all MFE versions. GPT-3.5 had mean accuracies of 54.8% for Polish and 60.3% for English, passing none and 2 of 3 Polish versions for temperature parameter equal to 0 and 1 respectively while passing all English versions regardless of the temperature parameter value. GPT-4 score was mostly lower than the average score of a medical student. There was a statistically significant correlation between the correctness of the answers and the index of difficulty for both models. The overall accuracy of both models was still suboptimal and worse than the average for medical students. This emphasizes the need for further improvements in LLMs before they can be reliably deployed in medical settings. These findings suggest an increasing potential for the usage of LLMs in terms of medical education.

A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) Analysis of ChatGPT in the Medical Literature: Concise Review

BACKGROUND

ChatGPT is a 175-billion-parameter natural language processing model that is already involved in scientific content and publications. Its influence ranges from providing quick access to information on medical topics, assisting in generating medical and scientific articles and papers, performing medical data analyses, and even interpreting complex data sets.

OBJECTIVE

The future role of ChatGPT remains uncertain and a matter of debate already shortly after its release. This review aimed to analyze the role of ChatGPT in the medical literature during the first 3 months after its release.

METHODS

We performed a concise review of literature published in PubMed from December 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023. To find all publications related to ChatGPT or considering ChatGPT, the search term was kept simple ("ChatGPT" in AllFields). All publications available as full text in German or English were included. All accessible publications were evaluated according to specifications by the author team (eg, impact factor, publication modus, article type, publication speed, and type of ChatGPT integration or content). The conclusions of the articles were used for later SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. All data were analyzed on a descriptive basis.

RESULTS

Of 178 studies in total, 160 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. The average impact factor was 4.423 (range 0-96.216), and the average publication speed was 16 (range 0-83) days. Among the articles, there were 77 editorials (48,1%), 43 essays (26.9%), 21 studies (13.1%), 6 reviews (3.8%), 6 case reports (3.8%), 6 news (3.8%), and 1 meta-analysis (0.6%). Of those, 54.4% (n=87) were published as open access, with 5% (n=8) provided on preprint servers. Over 400 quotes with information on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats were detected. By far, most (n=142, 34.8%) were related to weaknesses. ChatGPT excels in its ability to express ideas clearly and formulate general contexts comprehensibly. It performs so well that even experts in the field have difficulty identifying abstracts generated by ChatGPT. However, the time-limited scope and the need for corrections by experts were mentioned as weaknesses and threats of ChatGPT. Opportunities include assistance in formulating medical issues for nonnative English speakers, as well as the possibility of timely participation in the development of such artificial intelligence tools since it is in its early stages and can therefore still be influenced.

CONCLUSIONS

Artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT are already part of the medical publishing landscape. Despite their apparent opportunities, policies and guidelines must be implemented to ensure benefits in education, clinical practice, and research and protect against threats such as scientific misconduct, plagiarism, and inaccuracy.

Assessment of ChatGPT's performance on neurology written board examination questions

Background and objectives

ChatGPT has shown promise in healthcare. To assess the utility of this novel tool in healthcare education, we evaluated ChatGPT's performance in answering neurology board exam questions.

Methods

Neurology board-style examination questions were accessed from BoardVitals, a commercial neurology question bank. ChatGPT was provided a full question prompt and multiple answer choices. First attempts and additional attempts up to three tries were given to ChatGPT to select the correct answer. A total of 560 questions (14 blocks of 40 questions) were used, although any image-based questions were disregarded due to ChatGPT's inability to process visual input. The artificial intelligence (AI) answers were then compared with human user data provided by the question bank to gauge its performance.

Results

Out of 509 eligible questions over 14 question blocks, ChatGPT correctly answered 335 questions (65.8%) on the first attempt/iteration and 383 (75.3%) over three attempts/iterations, scoring at approximately the 26th and 50th percentiles, respectively. The highest performing subjects were pain (100%), epilepsy & seizures (85%) and genetic (82%) while the lowest performing subjects were imaging/diagnostic studies (27%), critical care (41%) and cranial nerves (48%).

Discussion

This study found that ChatGPT performed similarly to its human counterparts. The accuracy of the AI increased with multiple attempts and performance fell within the expected range of neurology resident learners. This study demonstrates ChatGPT's potential in processing specialised medical information. Future studies would better define the scope to which AI would be able to integrate into medical decision making.

Evaluation of community pharmacists' perceptions and willingness to integrate ChatGPT into their pharmacy practice: A study from Jordan

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to examine the extent of community pharmacists' awareness of Chat Generative Pretraining Transformer (ChatGPT), their willingness to embark on this new development of artificial intelligence (AI) development, and barriers that face the incorporation of this nonconventional source of information into pharmacy practice.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among community pharmacists in Jordanian cities between April 26, 2023, and May 10, 2023. Convenience and snowball sampling techniques were used to select study participants owing to resource and time constraints. The questionnaire was distributed by research assistants through popular social media platforms. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess predictors affecting their willingness to use this service in the future.

RESULTS

A total of 221 community pharmacists participated in the current study (response rate was not calculated because opt-in recruitment strategies were used). Remarkably, nearly half of the pharmacists (n = 107, 48.4%) indicated a willingness to incorporate the ChatGPT into their pharmacy practice. Nearly half of the pharmacists (n = 105, 47.5%) demonstrated a high perceived benefit score for ChatGPT, whereas approximately 37% of pharmacists (n = 81) expressed a high concern score about ChatGPT. More than 70% of pharmacists believed that ChatGPT lacked the ability to use human judgment and make complicated ethical judgments in its responses (n = 168). Finally, logistics regression analysis showed that pharmacists who had previous experience in using ChatGPT were more willing to integrate ChatGPT in their pharmacy practice than those with no previous experience in using ChatGPT (odds ratio 2.312, P = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

Although pharmacists show a willingness to incorporate ChatGPT into their practice, especially those with previous experience, there are major concerns. These mainly revolve around the tool's ability to make human-like judgments and ethical decisions. These findings are crucial for the future development and integration of AI tools in pharmacy practice.

Breaking barriers: can ChatGPT compete with a shoulder and elbow specialist in diagnosis and management?

Background

ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI) language processing model that uses deep learning to generate human-like responses to natural language inputs. Its potential use in health care has raised questions and several studies have assessed its effectiveness in writing articles, clinical reasoning, and solving complex questions. This study aims to investigate ChatGPT's capabilities and implications in diagnosing and managing patients with new shoulder and elbow complaints in a private clinical setting to provide insights into its potential use as a diagnostic tool for patients and a first consultation resource for primary physicians.

Methods

In a private clinical setting, patients were assessed by ChatGPT after being seen by a shoulder and elbow specialist for shoulder and elbow symptoms. To be assessed by the AI model, a research fellow filled out a standardized form (including age, gender, major comorbidities, symptoms and the localization, natural history, and duration, any associated symptoms or movement deficit, aggravating/relieving factors, and x-ray/imaging report if present). This form was submitted through the ChatGPT portal and the AI model was asked for a diagnosis and best management modality.

Results

A total of 29 patients with 15 males and 14 females, were included in this study. The AI model was able to correctly choose the diagnosis and management in 93% (27/29) and 83% (24/29) of the patients, respectively. Furthermore, of the remaining 24 patients that were managed correctly, ChatGPT did not specify the appropriate management in 6 patients and chose only one management in 5 patients, where both were applicable and dependent on the patient's choice. Therefore, 55% of ChatGPT's management was poor.

Conclusion

ChatGPT made a worthy opponent; however, it will not be able to replace in its current form a shoulder and elbow specialist in diagnosing and treating patients for many reasons such as misdiagnosis, poor management, lack of empathy and interactions with patients, its dependence on magnetic resonance imaging reports, and its lack of new knowledge.

Leveraging Generative AI and Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Roadmap for Healthcare Integration

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs), exemplified by ChatGPT, are promising for revolutionizing data and information management in healthcare and medicine. However, there is scant literature guiding their integration for non-AI professionals. This study conducts a scoping literature review to address the critical need for guidance on integrating generative AI and LLMs into healthcare and medical practices. It elucidates the distinct mechanisms underpinning these technologies, such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLFH), including few-shot learning and chain-of-thought reasoning, which differentiates them from traditional, rule-based AI systems. It requires an inclusive, collaborative co-design process that engages all pertinent stakeholders, including clinicians and consumers, to achieve these benefits. Although global research is examining both opportunities and challenges, including ethical and legal dimensions, LLMs offer promising advancements in healthcare by enhancing data management, information retrieval, and decision-making processes. Continued innovation in data acquisition, model fine-tuning, prompt strategy development, evaluation, and system implementation is imperative for realizing the full potential of these technologies. Organizations should proactively engage with these technologies to improve healthcare quality, safety, and efficiency, adhering to ethical and legal guidelines for responsible application.