Utilizing Artificial Intelligence and Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer to Answer Questions About Clinical Scenarios in Neuroanesthesiology

被引:4
作者
Blacker, Samuel N. [1 ]
Kang, Mia [1 ]
Chakraborty, Indranil [2 ]
Chowdhury, Tumul [3 ]
Williams, James [1 ]
Lewis, Carol [1 ]
Zimmer, Michael [1 ]
Wilson, Brad [1 ]
Lele, Abhijit V. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ North Carolina Chapel Hill, Dept Anesthesiol, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[2] Univ Arkansas, Dept Anesthesiol, Little Rock, AR USA
[3] Univ Toronto, Dept Anesthesiol, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Washington, Dept Anesthesiol, Seattle, WA USA
关键词
artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; clinical guideline applications; neuroanesthesia; language processing; ANESTHESIOLOGY; NEUROSCIENCE; ASSOCIATION; GUIDELINES; MANAGEMENT; SOCIETY; STROKE; CARE;
D O I
10.1097/ANA.0000000000000949
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Objective:We tested the ability of chat generative pretrained transformer (ChatGPT), an artificial intelligence chatbot, to answer questions relevant to scenarios covered in 3 clinical guidelines, published by the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC), which has published management guidelines: endovascular treatment of stroke, perioperative stroke (Stroke), and care of patients undergoing complex spine surgery (Spine).Methods:Four neuroanesthesiologists independently assessed whether ChatGPT could apply 52 high-quality recommendations (HQRs) included in the 3 SNACC guidelines. HQRs were deemed present in the ChatGPT responses if noted by at least 3 of the 4 reviewers. Reviewers also identified incorrect references, potentially harmful recommendations, and whether ChatGPT cited the SNACC guidelines.Results:The overall reviewer agreement for the presence of HQRs in the ChatGPT answers ranged from 0% to 100%. Only 4 of 52 (8%) HQRs were deemed present by at least 3 of the 4 reviewers after 5 generic questions, and 23 (44%) HQRs were deemed present after at least 1 additional targeted question. Potentially harmful recommendations were identified for each of the 3 clinical scenarios and ChatGPT failed to cite the SNACC guidelines.Conclusions:The ChatGPT answers were open to human interpretation regarding whether the responses included the HQRs. Though targeted questions resulted in the inclusion of more HQRs than generic questions, fewer than 50% of HQRs were noted even after targeted questions. This suggests that ChatGPT should not currently be considered a reliable source of information for clinical decision-making. Future iterations of ChatGPT may refine algorithms to improve its reliability as a source of clinical information.
引用
收藏
页码:346 / 351
页数:6
相关论文
共 17 条
  • [1] Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing
    Alkaissi, Hussam
    McFarlane, Samy I.
    [J]. CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 15 (02)
  • [2] Comparing Physician and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Questions Posted to a Public Social Media Forum
    Ayers, John W.
    Poliak, Adam
    Dredze, Mark
    Leas, Eric C.
    Zhu, Zechariah
    Kelley, Jessica B.
    Faix, Dennis J.
    Goodman, Aaron M.
    Longhurst, Christopher A.
    Hogarth, Michael
    Smith, Davey M.
    [J]. JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2023, 183 (06) : 589 - 596
  • [3] Performance of ChatGPT on a Radiology Board-style Examination: Insights into Current Strengths and Limitations
    Bhayana, Rajesh
    Krishna, Satheesh
    Bleakney, Robert R.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2023, 307 (05)
  • [4] Perioperative Care of Patients Undergoing Major Complex Spinal Instrumentation Surgery: Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care
    Blacker, Samuel N.
    Vincent, Anita
    Burbridge, Mark
    Bustillo, Maria
    Hazard, Sprague W.
    Heller, Benjamin J.
    Nadler, Jacob W.
    Sullo, Elaine
    Lele, Abhijit, V
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGICAL ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2022, 34 (03) : 257 - 276
  • [5] Chat Plugins, Learn how to build a plugin that allows ChatGPT to intelligently call your API
  • [6] Build infrastructure in publishing scientific journals to benefit medical scientists
    Dai, Ni
    Xu, Dingyao
    Zhong, Xiyao
    Li, Li
    Ling, Qibo
    Bu, Zhaode
    [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH, 2014, 26 (01) : 119 - 123
  • [7] Accessing Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Decision-Making
    Giordano, Chris
    Brennan, Meghan
    Mohamed, Basma
    Rashidi, Parisa
    Modave, Francois
    Tighe, Patrick
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN DIGITAL HEALTH, 2021, 3
  • [8] Haleem A., 2023, BENCHCOUNCIL T BENCH, V5, P89, DOI [10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100089, DOI 10.1016/J.TBENCH.2023.100089]
  • [9] Benefits, Limits, and Risks of GPT-4 as an AI Chatbot for Medicine
    Lee, Peter
    Bubeck, Sebastien
    Petro, Joseph
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2023, 388 (13) : 1233 - 1239
  • [10] Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora's Box Has Been Opened
    Majovsky, Martin
    Cerny, Martin
    Kasal, Mat Ej
    Komarc, Martin
    Netuka, David
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2023, 25