Project description:BackgroundChatGPT is a natural language processing model developed by OpenAI, which can be iteratively updated and optimized to accommodate the changing and complex requirements of human verbal communication.ObjectiveThe study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT's accuracy in answering orthopedics-related multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and assess its short-term effects as a learning aid through a randomized controlled trial. In addition, long-term effects on student performance in other subjects were measured using final examination results.MethodsWe first evaluated ChatGPT's accuracy in answering MCQs pertaining to orthopedics across various question formats. Then, 129 undergraduate medical students participated in a randomized controlled study in which the ChatGPT group used ChatGPT as a learning tool, while the control group was prohibited from using artificial intelligence software to support learning. Following a 2-week intervention, the 2 groups' understanding of orthopedics was assessed by an orthopedics test, and variations in the 2 groups' performance in other disciplines were noted through a follow-up at the end of the semester.ResultsChatGPT-4.0 answered 1051 orthopedics-related MCQs with a 70.60% (742/1051) accuracy rate, including 71.8% (237/330) accuracy for A1 MCQs, 73.7% (330/448) accuracy for A2 MCQs, 70.2% (92/131) accuracy for A3/4 MCQs, and 58.5% (83/142) accuracy for case analysis MCQs. As of April 7, 2023, a total of 129 individuals participated in the experiment. However, 19 individuals withdrew from the experiment at various phases; thus, as of July 1, 2023, a total of 110 individuals accomplished the trial and completed all follow-up work. After we intervened in the learning style of the students in the short term, the ChatGPT group answered more questions correctly than the control group (ChatGPT group: mean 141.20, SD 26.68; control group: mean 130.80, SD 25.56; P=.04) in the orthopedics test, particularly on A1 (ChatGPT group: mean 46.57, SD 8.52; control group: mean 42.18, SD 9.43; P=.01), A2 (ChatGPT group: mean 60.59, SD 10.58; control group: mean 56.66, SD 9.91; P=.047), and A3/4 MCQs (ChatGPT group: mean 19.57, SD 5.48; control group: mean 16.46, SD 4.58; P=.002). At the end of the semester, we found that the ChatGPT group performed better on final examinations in surgery (ChatGPT group: mean 76.54, SD 9.79; control group: mean 72.54, SD 8.11; P=.02) and obstetrics and gynecology (ChatGPT group: mean 75.98, SD 8.94; control group: mean 72.54, SD 8.66; P=.04) than the control group.ConclusionsChatGPT answers orthopedics-related MCQs accurately, and students using it excel in both short-term and long-term assessments. Our findings strongly support ChatGPT's integration into medical education, enhancing contemporary instructional methods.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry Chictr2300071774; https://www.chictr.org.cn/hvshowproject.html ?id=225740&v=1.0.

Project description:ObjectiveLarge language models such as ChatGPT have demonstrated significant potential in question-answering within ophthalmology, but there is a paucity of literature evaluating its ability to generate clinical assessments and discussions. The objectives of this study were to (1) assess the accuracy of assessment and plans generated by ChatGPT and (2) evaluate ophthalmologists' abilities to distinguish between responses generated by clinicians versus ChatGPT.DesignCross-sectional mixed-methods study.SubjectsSixteen ophthalmologists from a single academic center, of which 10 were board-eligible and 6 were board-certified, were recruited to participate in this study.MethodsPrompt engineering was used to ensure ChatGPT output discussions in the style of the ophthalmologist author of the Medical College of Wisconsin Ophthalmic Case Studies. Cases where ChatGPT accurately identified the primary diagnoses were included and then paired. Masked human-generated and ChatGPT-generated discussions were sent to participating ophthalmologists to identify the author of the discussions. Response confidence was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale score, and subjective feedback was manually reviewed.Main outcome measuresAccuracy of ophthalmologist identification of discussion author, as well as subjective perceptions of human-generated versus ChatGPT-generated discussions.ResultsOverall, ChatGPT correctly identified the primary diagnosis in 15 of 17 (88.2%) cases. Two cases were excluded from the paired comparison due to hallucinations or fabrications of nonuser-provided data. Ophthalmologists correctly identified the author in 77.9% ± 26.6% of the 13 included cases, with a mean Likert scale confidence rating of 3.6 ± 1.0. No significant differences in performance or confidence were found between board-certified and board-eligible ophthalmologists. Subjectively, ophthalmologists found that discussions written by ChatGPT tended to have more generic responses, irrelevant information, hallucinated more frequently, and had distinct syntactic patterns (all P < 0.01).ConclusionsLarge language models have the potential to synthesize clinical data and generate ophthalmic discussions. While these findings have exciting implications for artificial intelligence-assisted health care delivery, more rigorous real-world evaluation of these models is necessary before clinical deployment.Financial disclosuresThe author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Project description:BackgroundThe widespread use of artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT (OpenAI), is transforming sectors, including health care, while separate advancements of the internet have enabled platforms such as China's DingXiangYuan to offer remote medical services.ObjectiveThis study evaluates ChatGPT-4's responses against those of professional health care providers in telemedicine, assessing artificial intelligence's capability to support the surge in remote medical consultations and its impact on health care delivery.MethodsWe sourced remote orthopedic consultations from "Doctor DingXiang," with responses from its certified physicians as the control and ChatGPT's responses as the experimental group. In all, 3 blindfolded, experienced orthopedic surgeons assessed responses against 7 criteria: "logical reasoning," "internal information," "external information," "guiding function," "therapeutic effect," "medical knowledge popularization education," and "overall satisfaction." We used Fleiss κ to measure agreement among multiple raters.ResultsInitially, consultation records for a cumulative count of 8 maladies (equivalent to 800 cases) were gathered. We ultimately included 73 consultation records by May 2023, following primary and rescreening, in which no communication records containing private information, images, or voice messages were transmitted. After statistical scoring, we discovered that ChatGPT's "internal information" score (mean 4.61, SD 0.52 points vs mean 4.66, SD 0.49 points; P=.43) and "therapeutic effect" score (mean 4.43, SD 0.75 points vs mean 4.55, SD 0.62 points; P=.32) were lower than those of the control group, but the differences were not statistically significant. ChatGPT showed better performance with a higher "logical reasoning" score (mean 4.81, SD 0.36 points vs mean 4.75, SD 0.39 points; P=.38), "external information" score (mean 4.06, SD 0.72 points vs mean 3.92, SD 0.77 points; P=.25), and "guiding function" score (mean 4.73, SD 0.51 points vs mean 4.72, SD 0.54 points; P=.96), although the differences were not statistically significant. Meanwhile, the "medical knowledge popularization education" score of ChatGPT was better than that of the control group (mean 4.49, SD 0.67 points vs mean 3.87, SD 1.01 points; P<.001), and the difference was statistically significant. In terms of "overall satisfaction," the difference was not statistically significant between the groups (mean 8.35, SD 1.38 points vs mean 8.37, SD 1.24 points; P=.92). According to how Fleiss κ values were interpreted, 6 of the control group's score points were classified as displaying "fair agreement" (P<.001), and 1 was classified as showing "substantial agreement" (P<.001). In the experimental group, 3 points were classified as indicating "fair agreement," while 4 suggested "moderate agreement" (P<.001).ConclusionsChatGPT-4 matches the expertise found in DingXiangYuan forums' paid consultations, excelling particularly in scientific education. It presents a promising alternative for remote health advice. For health care professionals, it could act as an aid in patient education, while patients may use it as a convenient tool for health inquiries.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has gained tremendous popularity recently, especially the use of natural language processing (NLP). ChatGPT is a state-of-the-art chatbot capable of creating natural conversations using NLP. The use of AI in medicine can have a tremendous impact on health care delivery. Although some studies have evaluated ChatGPT's accuracy in self-diagnosis, there is no research regarding its precision and the degree to which it recommends medical consultations.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate ChatGPT's ability to accurately and precisely self-diagnose common orthopedic diseases, as well as the degree of recommendation it provides for medical consultations.MethodsOver a 5-day course, each of the study authors submitted the same questions to ChatGPT. The conditions evaluated were carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), cervical myelopathy (CM), lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and hip osteoarthritis (HOA). Answers were categorized as either correct, partially correct, incorrect, or a differential diagnosis. The percentage of correct answers and reproducibility were calculated. The reproducibility between days and raters were calculated using the Fleiss κ coefficient. Answers that recommended that the patient seek medical attention were recategorized according to the strength of the recommendation as defined by the study.ResultsThe ratios of correct answers were 25/25, 1/25, 24/25, 16/25, and 17/25 for CTS, CM, LSS, KOA, and HOA, respectively. The ratios of incorrect answers were 23/25 for CM and 0/25 for all other conditions. The reproducibility between days was 1.0, 0.15, 0.7, 0.6, and 0.6 for CTS, CM, LSS, KOA, and HOA, respectively. The reproducibility between raters was 1.0, 0.1, 0.64, -0.12, and 0.04 for CTS, CM, LSS, KOA, and HOA, respectively. Among the answers recommending medical attention, the phrases "essential," "recommended," "best," and "important" were used. Specifically, "essential" occurred in 4 out of 125, "recommended" in 12 out of 125, "best" in 6 out of 125, and "important" in 94 out of 125 answers. Additionally, 7 out of the 125 answers did not include a recommendation to seek medical attention.ConclusionsThe accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT to self-diagnose five common orthopedic conditions were inconsistent. The accuracy could potentially be improved by adding symptoms that could easily identify a specific location. Only a few answers were accompanied by a strong recommendation to seek medical attention according to our study standards. Although ChatGPT could serve as a potential first step in accessing care, we found variability in accurate self-diagnosis. Given the risk of harm with self-diagnosis without medical follow-up, it would be prudent for an NLP to include clear language alerting patients to seek expert medical opinions. We hope to shed further light on the use of AI in a future clinical study.

Project description:BackgroundWith the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI), there is an increasing interest in their potential to assist in scholarly tasks, including conducting literature reviews. However, the efficacy of AI-generated reviews compared with traditional human-led approaches remains underexplored.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the quality of literature reviews conducted by the ChatGPT-4 model with those conducted by human researchers, focusing on the relational dynamics between physicians and patients.MethodsWe included 2 literature reviews in the study on the same topic, namely, exploring factors affecting relational dynamics between physicians and patients in medicolegal contexts. One review used GPT-4, last updated in September 2021, and the other was conducted by human researchers. The human review involved a comprehensive literature search using medical subject headings and keywords in Ovid MEDLINE, followed by a thematic analysis of the literature to synthesize information from selected articles. The AI-generated review used a new prompt engineering approach, using iterative and sequential prompts to generate results. Comparative analysis was based on qualitative measures such as accuracy, response time, consistency, breadth and depth of knowledge, contextual understanding, and transparency.ResultsGPT-4 produced an extensive list of relational factors rapidly. The AI model demonstrated an impressive breadth of knowledge but exhibited limitations in in-depth and contextual understanding, occasionally producing irrelevant or incorrect information. In comparison, human researchers provided a more nuanced and contextually relevant review. The comparative analysis assessed the reviews based on criteria including accuracy, response time, consistency, breadth and depth of knowledge, contextual understanding, and transparency. While GPT-4 showed advantages in response time and breadth of knowledge, human-led reviews excelled in accuracy, depth of knowledge, and contextual understanding.ConclusionsThe study suggests that GPT-4, with structured prompt engineering, can be a valuable tool for conducting preliminary literature reviews by providing a broad overview of topics quickly. However, its limitations necessitate careful expert evaluation and refinement, making it an assistant rather than a substitute for human expertise in comprehensive literature reviews. Moreover, this research highlights the potential and limitations of using AI tools like GPT-4 in academic research, particularly in the fields of health services and medical research. It underscores the necessity of combining AI's rapid information retrieval capabilities with human expertise for more accurate and contextually rich scholarly outputs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The 2014/2015 Ebolavirus outbreak resulted in more than 28,000 cases and 11,323 reported deaths, as of March 2016. Domestic transmission of the Guinea strain associated with the outbreak occurred mainly in six African countries, and international transmission was reported in four countries. Outbreak management was limited by the inability to rapidly diagnose infected cases. A further fifteen countries in Africa are predicted to be at risk of Ebolavirus outbreaks in the future as a consequence of climate change and urbanization. Early detection of cases and reduction of transmission rates is critical to prevent and manage future severe outbreaks. We designed a rapid assay for detection of Ebolavirus using recombinase polymerase amplification, a rapid isothermal amplification technology that can be combined with portable lateral flow detection technology. The developed rapid assay operates in 30 min and was comparable with real-time TaqMan™ PCR. METHODS:Designed, screened, selected and optimized oligonucleotides using the NP coding region from Ebola Zaire virus (Guinea strain). We determined the analytical sensitivity of our Ebola rapid molecular test by testing selected primers and probe with tenfold serial dilutions (1.34 × 1010- 1.34 × 101 copies/μL) of cloned NP gene from Mayinga strain of Zaire ebolavirus in pCAGGS vector, and serially diluted cultured Ebolavirus as established by real-time TaqMan™ PCR that was performed using ABI7500 in Fast Mode. We tested extracted and reverse transcribed RNA from cultured Zaire ebolavirus strains - Mayinga, Gueckedou C05, Gueckedou C07, Makona, Kissidougou and Kiwit. We determined the analytical specificity of our assay with related viruses: Marburg, Ebola Reston and Ebola Sudan. We further tested for Dengue virus 1-4, Plasmodium falciparum and West Nile Virus (Kunjin strain). RESULTS:The assay had a detection limit of 134 copies per μL of plasmid containing the NP gene of Ebolavirus Mayinga, and cultured Ebolavirus and was highly specific for the Zaire ebolavirus species, including the Guinea strain responsible for the 2014/2015 outbreak. The assay did not detect related viruses like Marburg, Reston, or Sudan viruses, and other pathogens likely to be isolated from clinical samples. CONCLUSIONS:Our assay could be suitable for implementation in district and primary health laboratories, as only a heating block and centrifuge is required for operation. The technique could provide a pathway for rapid screening of patients and animals for improved management of outbreaks.

Dataset Information

ChatGPT-4 generates orthopedic discharge documents faster than humans maintaining comparable quality: a pilot study of 6 cases

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets