What can GPT-4 do for Diagnosing Rare Eye Diseases? A Pilot Study

Rare disease diagnosis using knowledge guided retrieval augmentation for ChatGPT

Although rare diseases individually have a low prevalence, they collectively affect nearly 400 million individuals around the world. On average, it takes five years for an accurate rare disease diagnosis, but many patients remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. As machine learning technologies have been used to aid diagnostics in the past, this study aims to test ChatGPT's suitability for rare disease diagnostic support with the enhancement provided by Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG). RareDxGPT, our enhanced ChatGPT model, supplies ChatGPT with information about 717 rare diseases from an external knowledge resource, the RareDis Corpus, through RAG. In RareDxGPT, when a query is entered, the three documents most relevant to the query in the RareDis Corpus are retrieved. Along with the query, they are returned to ChatGPT to provide a diagnosis. Additionally, phenotypes for thirty different diseases were extracted from free text from PubMed's Case Reports. They were each entered with three different prompt types: "prompt", "prompt + explanation" and "prompt + role play." The accuracy of ChatGPT and RareDxGPT with each prompt was then measured. With "Prompt", RareDxGPT had a 40 % accuracy, while ChatGPT 3.5 got 37 % of the cases correct. With "Prompt + Explanation", RareDxGPT had a 43 % accuracy, while ChatGPT 3.5 got 23 % of the cases correct. With "Prompt + Role Play", RareDxGPT had a 40 % accuracy, while ChatGPT 3.5 got 23 % of the cases correct. To conclude, ChatGPT, especially when supplying extra domain specific knowledge, demonstrates early potential for rare disease diagnosis with adjustments.

Understanding Natural Language: Potential Application of Large Language Models to Ophthalmology

Large language models (LLMs), a natural language processing technology based on deep learning, are currently in the spotlight. These models closely mimic natural language comprehension and generation. Their evolution has undergone several waves of innovation similar to convolutional neural networks. The transformer architecture advancement in generative artificial intelligence marks a monumental leap beyond early-stage pattern recognition via supervised learning. With the expansion of parameters and training data (terabytes), LLMs unveil remarkable human interactivity, encompassing capabilities such as memory retention and comprehension. These advances make LLMs particularly well-suited for roles in healthcare communication between medical practitioners and patients. In this comprehensive review we discuss the trajectory of LLMs and potential implications for clinicians and patients. For clinicians, LLMs can be used for automated medical documentation, and given better inputs and extensive validation, LLMs may be able to autonomously diagnose and treat in the future. For patient care, LLMs can be used for triage suggestions, summarization of medical documents, explanation of a patient's condition, and customizing patient education materials tailored to their comprehension level. The limitations of LLM and possible solutions for real world use are also presented. Given the rapid advancements in this area, this review attempts to briefly cover many roles that LLMs may play in the ophthalmic space, with a focus on improving the quality of healthcare delivery.

Large Language Model-Based Responses to Patients' In-Basket Messages

Importance

Virtual patient-physician communications have increased since 2020 and negatively impacted primary care physician (PCP) well-being. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) drafts of patient messages could potentially reduce health care professional (HCP) workload and improve communication quality, but only if the drafts are considered useful.

Objectives

To assess PCPs' perceptions of GenAI drafts and to examine linguistic characteristics associated with equity and perceived empathy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional quality improvement study tested the hypothesis that PCPs' ratings of GenAI drafts (created using the electronic health record [EHR] standard prompts) would be equivalent to HCP-generated responses on 3 dimensions. The study was conducted at NYU Langone Health using private patient-HCP communications at 3 internal medicine practices piloting GenAI.

Exposures

Randomly assigned patient messages coupled with either an HCP message or the draft GenAI response.

Main Outcomes and Measures

PCPs rated responses' information content quality (eg, relevance), using a Likert scale, communication quality (eg, verbosity), using a Likert scale, and whether they would use the draft or start anew (usable vs unusable). Branching logic further probed for empathy, personalization, and professionalism of responses. Computational linguistics methods assessed content differences in HCP vs GenAI responses, focusing on equity and empathy.

Results

A total of 16 PCPs (8 [50.0%] female) reviewed 344 messages (175 GenAI drafted; 169 HCP drafted). Both GenAI and HCP responses were rated favorably. GenAI responses were rated higher for communication style than HCP responses (mean [SD], 3.70 [1.15] vs 3.38 [1.20]; P = .01, U = 12 568.5) but were similar to HCPs on information content (mean [SD], 3.53 [1.26] vs 3.41 [1.27]; P = .37; U = 13 981.0) and usable draft proportion (mean [SD], 0.69 [0.48] vs 0.65 [0.47], P = .49, t = -0.6842). Usable GenAI responses were considered more empathetic than usable HCP responses (32 of 86 [37.2%] vs 13 of 79 [16.5%]; difference, 125.5%), possibly attributable to more subjective (mean [SD], 0.54 [0.16] vs 0.31 [0.23]; P < .001; difference, 74.2%) and positive (mean [SD] polarity, 0.21 [0.14] vs 0.13 [0.25]; P = .02; difference, 61.5%) language; they were also numerically longer (mean [SD] word count, 90.5 [32.0] vs 65.4 [62.6]; difference, 38.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07) and more linguistically complex (mean [SD] score, 125.2 [47.8] vs 95.4 [58.8]; P = .002; difference, 31.2%).

Conclusions

In this cross-sectional study of PCP perceptions of an EHR-integrated GenAI chatbot, GenAI was found to communicate information better and with more empathy than HCPs, highlighting its potential to enhance patient-HCP communication. However, GenAI drafts were less readable than HCPs', a significant concern for patients with low health or English literacy.

ChatGPT enters the room: what it means for patient counseling, physician education, academics, and disease management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review seeks to provide a summary of the most recent research findings regarding the utilization of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbot, in the field of ophthalmology in addition to exploring the limitations and ethical considerations associated with its application.

RECENT FINDINGS

ChatGPT has gained widespread recognition and demonstrated potential in enhancing patient and physician education, boosting research productivity, and streamlining administrative tasks. In various studies examining its utility in ophthalmology, ChatGPT has exhibited fair to good accuracy, with its most recent iteration showcasing superior performance in providing ophthalmic recommendations across various ophthalmic disorders such as corneal diseases, orbital disorders, vitreoretinal diseases, uveitis, neuro-ophthalmology, and glaucoma. This proves beneficial for patients in accessing information and aids physicians in triaging as well as formulating differential diagnoses. Despite such benefits, ChatGPT has limitations that require acknowledgment including the potential risk of offering inaccurate or harmful information, dependence on outdated data, the necessity for a high level of education for data comprehension, and concerns regarding patient privacy and ethical considerations within the research domain.

SUMMARY

ChatGPT is a promising new tool that could contribute to ophthalmic healthcare education and research, potentially reducing work burdens. However, its current limitations necessitate a complementary role with human expert oversight.

Utility of artificial intelligence-based large language models in ophthalmic care

PURPOSE

With the introduction of ChatGPT, artificial intelligence (AI)-based large language models (LLMs) are rapidly becoming popular within the scientific community. They use natural language processing to generate human-like responses to queries. However, the application of LLMs and comparison of the abilities among different LLMs with their human counterparts in ophthalmic care remain under-reported.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hitherto, studies in eye care have demonstrated the utility of ChatGPT in generating patient information, clinical diagnosis and passing ophthalmology question-based examinations, among others. LLMs' performance (median accuracy, %) is influenced by factors such as the iteration, prompts utilised and the domain. Human expert (86%) demonstrated the highest proficiency in disease diagnosis, while ChatGPT-4 outperformed others in ophthalmology examinations (75.9%), symptom triaging (98%) and providing information and answering questions (84.6%). LLMs exhibited superior performance in general ophthalmology but reduced accuracy in ophthalmic subspecialties. Although AI-based LLMs like ChatGPT are deemed more efficient than their human counterparts, these AIs are constrained by their nonspecific and outdated training, no access to current knowledge, generation of plausible-sounding 'fake' responses or hallucinations, inability to process images, lack of critical literature analysis and ethical and copyright issues. A comprehensive evaluation of recently published studies is crucial to deepen understanding of LLMs and the potential of these AI-based LLMs.

SUMMARY

Ophthalmic care professionals should undertake a conservative approach when using AI, as human judgement remains essential for clinical decision-making and monitoring the accuracy of information. This review identified the ophthalmic applications and potential usages which need further exploration. With the advancement of LLMs, setting standards for benchmarking and promoting best practices is crucial. Potential clinical deployment requires the evaluation of these LLMs to move away from artificial settings, delve into clinical trials and determine their usefulness in the real world.

Assessment of a Large Language Model's Responses to Questions and Cases About Glaucoma and Retina Management

Importance

Large language models (LLMs) are revolutionizing medical diagnosis and treatment, offering unprecedented accuracy and ease surpassing conventional search engines. Their integration into medical assistance programs will become pivotal for ophthalmologists as an adjunct for practicing evidence-based medicine. Therefore, the diagnostic and treatment accuracy of LLM-generated responses compared with fellowship-trained ophthalmologists can help assess their accuracy and validate their potential utility in ophthalmic subspecialties.

Objective

To compare the diagnostic accuracy and comprehensiveness of responses from an LLM chatbot with those of fellowship-trained glaucoma and retina specialists on ophthalmological questions and real patient case management.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This comparative cross-sectional study recruited 15 participants aged 31 to 67 years, including 12 attending physicians and 3 senior trainees, from eye clinics affiliated with the Department of Ophthalmology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. Glaucoma and retina questions (10 of each type) were randomly selected from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's commonly asked questions Ask an Ophthalmologist. Deidentified glaucoma and retinal cases (10 of each type) were randomly selected from ophthalmology patients seen at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai-affiliated clinics. The LLM used was GPT-4 (version dated May 12, 2023). Data were collected from June to August 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Responses were assessed via a Likert scale for medical accuracy and completeness. Statistical analysis involved the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by pairwise comparison.

Results

The combined question-case mean rank for accuracy was 506.2 for the LLM chatbot and 403.4 for glaucoma specialists (n = 831; Mann-Whitney U = 27976.5; P < .001), and the mean rank for completeness was 528.3 and 398.7, respectively (n = 828; Mann-Whitney U = 25218.5; P < .001). The mean rank for accuracy was 235.3 for the LLM chatbot and 216.1 for retina specialists (n = 440; Mann-Whitney U = 15518.0; P = .17), and the mean rank for completeness was 258.3 and 208.7, respectively (n = 439; Mann-Whitney U = 13123.5; P = .005). The Dunn test revealed a significant difference between all pairwise comparisons, except specialist vs trainee in rating chatbot completeness. The overall pairwise comparisons showed that both trainees and specialists rated the chatbot's accuracy and completeness more favorably than those of their specialist counterparts, with specialists noting a significant difference in the chatbot's accuracy (z = 3.23; P = .007) and completeness (z = 5.86; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study accentuates the comparative proficiency of LLM chatbots in diagnostic accuracy and completeness compared with fellowship-trained ophthalmologists in various clinical scenarios. The LLM chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy, substantiating its role as a promising diagnostic adjunct in ophthalmology.

Patients with floaters: Answers from virtual assistants and large language models

Objectives

"Floaters," a common complaint among patients of all ages, was used as a query term because it affects 30% of all people searching for eye care. The American Academy of Ophthalmology website's "floaters" section was used as a source for questions and answers (www.aao.org). Floaters is a visual obstruction that moves with the movement of the eye. They can be associated with retinal detachment, which can lead to vision loss. With the advent of large language model (LLM) chatbots ChatGPT, Bard versus virtual assistants (VA), Google Assistant, and Alexa, we analyzed their responses to "floaters."

Methods

Using AAO.org, "Public & Patients," and its related subsection, "EyeHealth A-Z": Floaters and Flashes link, we asked four questions: (1) What are floaters? (2) What are flashes? (3) Flashes and Migraines? (4) Floaters and Flashes Treatment? to ChatGPT, Bard, Google Assistant, and Alexa. The American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) keywords were identified if they were highlighted. The "Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level" formula approved by the U.S. Department of Education, was used to evaluate the reading comprehension level for the responses.

Results

Of the chatbots and virtual assistants, Google Assistant is the only one that uses the term "ophthalmologist." There is no mention of the urgency or emergency nature of floaters. AAO.org shows a lower reading level vs the LLMs and VA (p = .11). The reading comprehension levels of ChatGPT, Bard, Google Assistant, and Alexa are higher (12.3, 9.7, 13.1, 8.1 grade) vs the AAO.org (7.3 grade). There is a higher word count for LLMs vs VA (p < .0286).

Conclusion

Currently, ChatGPT, Bard, Google Assistant, and Alexa are similar. Factual information is present but all miss the urgency of the diagnosis of a retinal detachment. Translational relevance: Both the LLM and virtual assistants are free and our patients will use them to obtain "floaters" information. There may be errors of omission with ChatGPT and a lack of urgency to seek a physician's care.

Revolutionizing ocular cancer management: a narrative review on exploring the potential role of ChatGPT

This paper pioneers the exploration of ocular cancer, and its management with the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology. Existing literature presents a significant increase in new eye cancer cases in 2023, experiencing a higher incidence rate. Extensive research was conducted using online databases such as PubMed, ACM Digital Library, ScienceDirect, and Springer. To conduct this review, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines are used. Of the collected 62 studies, only 20 documents met the inclusion criteria. The review study identifies seven ocular cancer types. Important challenges associated with ocular cancer are highlighted, including limited awareness about eye cancer, restricted healthcare access, financial barriers, and insufficient infrastructure support. Financial barriers is one of the widely examined ocular cancer challenges in the literature. The potential role and limitations of ChatGPT are discussed, emphasizing its usefulness in providing general information to physicians, noting its inability to deliver up-to-date information. The paper concludes by presenting the potential future applications of ChatGPT to advance research on ocular cancer globally.