Exploring the potential utility of AI large language models for medical ethics: an expert panel evaluation of GPT-4

被引:17
作者
Balas, Michael [1 ,13 ]
Wadden, Jordan Joseph [2 ,3 ]
Hebert, Philip C. [1 ,4 ]
Mathison, Eric [5 ]
Warren, Marika D. [6 ]
Seavilleklein, Victoria [7 ]
Wyzynski, Daniel [8 ]
Callahan, Alison [9 ]
Crawford, Sean A. [10 ]
Arjmand, Parnian [11 ]
Ing, Edsel B. [12 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Temerty Fac Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] Unity Hlth Toronto, Ctr Clin Eth, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Scarborough Hlth Network, Clin Eth, Scarborough, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, Dept Family & Community Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[5] Univ Toronto, Philosophy, Toronto, ON, Canada
[6] Dalhousie Univ, Bioeth, Halifax, NS, Canada
[7] Alberta Hlth Serv, Clin Eth Serv, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[8] London Hlth Sci Ctr, Off Hlth Eth, London, ON, Canada
[9] Ontario Shores Ctr Mental Hlth Sci, Eth Dept, Whitby, ON, Canada
[10] Univ Hlth Network, Dept Surg, Div Vasc Surg, Toronto, ON, Canada
[11] Mississauga Retina Inst, Mississauga, ON, Canada
[12] Univ Alberta, Ophthalmol, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[13] Univ Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
Decision-making; Ethics-; Medical; Information Technology;
D O I
10.1136/jme-2023-109549
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Integrating large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 into medical ethics is a novel concept, and understanding the effectiveness of these models in aiding ethicists with decision-making can have significant implications for the healthcare sector. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of GPT-4 in responding to complex medical ethical vignettes and to gauge its utility and limitations for aiding medical ethicists. Using a mixed-methods, cross-sectional survey approach, a panel of six ethicists assessed LLM-generated responses to eight ethical vignettes.The main outcomes measured were relevance, reasoning, depth, technical and non-technical clarity, as well as acceptability of GPT-4's responses. The readability of the responses was also assessed. Of the six metrics evaluating the effectiveness of GPT-4's responses, the overall mean score was 4.1/5. GPT-4 was rated highest in providing technical (4.7/5) and non-technical clarity (4.4/5), whereas the lowest rated metrics were depth (3.8/5) and acceptability (3.8/5). There was poor-to-moderate inter-rater reliability characterised by an intraclass coefficient of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.71). Based on panellist feedback, GPT-4 was able to identify and articulate key ethical issues but struggled to appreciate the nuanced aspects of ethical dilemmas and misapplied certain moral principles.This study reveals limitations in the ability of GPT-4 to appreciate the depth and nuanced acceptability of real-world ethical dilemmas, particularly those that require a thorough understanding of relational complexities and context-specific values. Ongoing evaluation of LLM capabilities within medical ethics remains paramount, and further refinement is needed before it can be used effectively in clinical settings.
引用
收藏
页码:90 / 96
页数:7
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing [J].
Alkaissi, Hussam ;
McFarlane, Samy I. .
CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 15 (02)
[2]   Artificial morality: Top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid approaches [J].
Allen C. ;
Smit I. ;
Wallach W. .
Ethics and Information Technology, 2005, 7 (3) :149-155
[3]   The Moral Machine experiment [J].
Awad, Edmond ;
Dsouza, Sohan ;
Kim, Richard ;
Schulz, Jonathan ;
Henrich, Joseph ;
Shariff, Azim ;
Bonnefon, Jean-Francois ;
Rahwan, Iyad .
NATURE, 2018, 563 (7729) :59-+
[4]  
Balas M., 2023, JFO OPEN OPHTHALMOL, V1, DOI [10.1016/j.jfop.2023.100005, DOI 10.1016/J.JFOP.2023.100005]
[5]  
Beauchamp TL, 2013, Principles of biomedical ethics, VSeventh, DOI DOI 10.5915/43-3-8476
[6]   ChatGPT and the Future of Medical Writing [J].
Biswas, Som .
RADIOLOGY, 2023, 307 (02)
[7]   MULTIPLE SIGNIFICANCE TESTS - THE BONFERRONI METHOD .10. [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1995, 310 (6973) :170-170
[8]  
Brown TB, 2020, ADV NEUR IN, V33
[9]   A New Readability Yardstick [J].
Flesch, Rudolf .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 1948, 32 (03) :221-233
[10]   The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines [J].
Hagendorff, Thilo .
MINDS AND MACHINES, 2020, 30 (01) :99-120