Artificial Intelligence Chatbots' Understanding of the Risks and Benefits of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scenarios

被引:3
|
作者
Patil, Nikhil S. [1 ]
Huang, Ryan S. [2 ]
Caterine, Scott [3 ]
Yao, Jason [3 ]
Larocque, Natasha [3 ]
van der Pol, Christian B. [3 ]
Stubbs, Euan [3 ]
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Michael G DeGroote Sch Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Temerty Fac Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] McMaster Univ, Dept Radiol, Hamilton, ON, Canada
来源
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RADIOLOGISTS JOURNAL-JOURNAL DE L ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DES RADIOLOGISTES | 2024年 / 75卷 / 03期
关键词
ChatGPT; Bard; Google; contrast; risks; MRI; CT; CONTRAST AGENTS;
D O I
10.1177/08465371231220561
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: Patients may seek online information to better understand medical imaging procedures. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of information provided by 2 popular artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots pertaining to common imaging scenarios' risks, benefits, and alternatives. Methods: Fourteen imaging-related scenarios pertaining to computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used. Factors including the use of intravenous contrast, the presence of renal disease, and whether the patient was pregnant were included in the analysis. For each scenario, 3 prompts for outlining the (1) risks, (2) benefits, and (3) alternative imaging choices or potential implications of not using contrast were inputted into ChatGPT and Bard. A grading rubric and a 5-point Likert scale was used by 2 independent reviewers to grade responses. Prompt variability and chatbot context dependency were also assessed. Results: ChatGPT's performance was superior to Bard's in accurately responding to prompts per Likert grading (4.36 +/- 0.63 vs 3.25 +/- 1.03 seconds, P < .0001). There was substantial agreement between independent reviewer grading for ChatGPT (kappa = 0.621) and Bard (kappa = 0.684). Response text length was not statistically different between ChatGPT and Bard (2087 +/- 256 characters vs 2162 +/- 369 characters, P = .24). Response time was longer for ChatGPT (34 +/- 2 vs 8 +/- 1 seconds, P < .0001). Conclusions: ChatGPT performed superior to Bard at outlining risks, benefits, and alternatives to common imaging scenarios. Generally, context dependency and prompt variability did not change chatbot response content. Due to the lack of detailed scientific reasoning and inability to provide patient-specific information, both AI chatbots have limitations as a patient information resource.
引用
收藏
页码:518 / 524
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Rebalancing the risks of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance imaging
    Greenberg, S. Bruce
    PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY, 2011, 41 (08) : 951 - 952
  • [2] Comparison of Computed Tomography-Based Artificial Intelligence Modeling and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diagnosis of Cholesteatoma
    Eroglu, Orkun
    Eroglu, Yesim
    Yildirim, Muhammed
    Karlidag, Turgut
    Cinar, Ahmet
    Akyigit, Abdulvahap
    Kaygusuz, Irfan
    Yildirim, Hanefi
    Keles, Erol
    Yalcin, Sinasi
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED OTOLOGY, 2023, 19 (04) : 342 - 349
  • [3] Determinants of the diffusion of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging
    Oh, EH
    Imanaka, Y
    Evans, E
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2005, 21 (01) : 73 - 80
  • [4] Bimodal magnetic resonance imaging-computed tomography nanoprobes: A Review
    Bakhtiari-Asl, Fatemeh
    Divband, Baharak
    Mesbahi, Asghar
    Gharehaghaji, Nahideh
    NANOMEDICINE JOURNAL, 2020, 7 (01) : 1 - 12
  • [5] Artificial Intelligence and Cardiac PET/Computed Tomography Imaging
    Miller, Robert J. H.
    Singh, Ananya
    Dey, Damini
    Slomka, Piotr
    PET CLINICS, 2022, 17 (01) : 85 - 94
  • [6] Conventional and artificial intelligence-based computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging quantitative techniques for non-invasive liver fibrosis staging
    Zheng, Shuang
    He, Kan
    Zhang, Lei
    Li, Mingyang
    Zhang, Huimao
    Gao, Pujun
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2023, 165
  • [7] Optimizing neonatal cardiac imaging (magnetic resonance/computed tomography)
    Ramirez-Suarez, Karen, I
    Tierradentro-Garcia, Luis Octavio
    Otero, Hansel J.
    Rapp, Jordan B.
    White, Ammie M.
    Partington, Sara L.
    Harris, Matthew A.
    Vatsky, Seth A.
    Whitehead, Kevin K.
    Fogel, Mark A.
    Biko, David M.
    PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY, 2022, 52 (04) : 661 - 675
  • [8] Comparison of the Glenoid Index by Computed Tomography With Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Ahmed, Nida A.
    Narendran, Kailash
    Ahmed, Nishath A.
    Prashanth, A.
    Holebasu, B.
    Kalawatia, Mihit
    Dudeja, Kunal
    Kamble, Parijat
    Prasad, Roshan
    Mittal, Gaurav
    Sangoi, Ravi
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 16 (01)
  • [9] Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of peripelvic and periureteric pathologies
    Gumeler, Ekim
    Onur, Mehmet Ruhi
    Karaosmanoglu, Ali Devrim
    Ozmen, Mustafa
    Akata, Deniz
    Karcaaltincaba, Musturay
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 43 (09) : 2400 - 2411
  • [10] Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging features of cervical chordoma
    Cui, Jiu-Fa
    Hao, Da-Peng
    Chen, Hai-Song
    Liu, Ji-Hua
    Hou, Feng
    Xu, Wen-Jian
    ONCOLOGY LETTERS, 2018, 16 (01) : 861 - 865