ChatGPT: when artificial intelligence replaces the rheumatologist in medical writing

How to mitigate the risks of deployment of artificial intelligence in medicine?

The aim of this study is to examine the risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine and to offer policy suggestions to reduce these risks and optimize the benefits of AI technology. AI is a multifaceted technology. If harnessed effectively, it has the capacity to significantly impact the future of humanity in the field of health, as well as in several other areas. However, the rapid spread of this technology also raises significant ethical, legal, and social issues. This study examines the potential dangers of AI integration in medicine by reviewing current scientific work and exploring strategies to mitigate these risks. Biases in data sets for AI systems can lead to inequities in health care. Educational data that is narrowly represented based on a demographic group can lead to biased results from AI systems for those who do not belong to that group. In addition, the concepts of explainability and accountability in AI systems could create challenges for healthcare professionals in understanding and evaluating AI-generated diagnoses or treatment recommendations. This could jeopardize patient safety and lead to the selection of inappropriate treatments. Ensuring the security of personal health information will be critical as AI systems become more widespread. Therefore, improving patient privacy and security protocols for AI systems is imperative. The report offers suggestions for reducing the risks associated with the increasing use of AI systems in the medical sector. These include increasing AI literacy, implementing a participatory society-in-the-loop management strategy, and creating ongoing education and auditing systems. Integrating ethical principles and cultural values into the design of AI systems can help reduce healthcare disparities and improve patient care. Implementing these recommendations will ensure the efficient and equitable use of AI systems in medicine, improve the quality of healthcare services, and ensure patient safety.

Evaluation of the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses to and references for clinical questions in physical therapy

[Purpose] This study evaluated the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses to and references for five clinical questions in physical therapy based on the Physical Therapy Guidelines and assessed this language model's potential as a tool for supporting clinical decision-making in the rehabilitation field. [Participants and Methods] Five clinical questions from the "Stroke", "Musculoskeletal disorders", and "Internal disorders" sections of the Physical Therapy Guidelines, released by the Japanese Society of Physical Therapy, were presented to ChatGPT. ChatGPT was instructed to provide responses in Japanese accompanied by references such as PubMed IDs or digital object identifiers. The accuracy of the generated content and references was evaluated by two assessors with expertise in their respective sections by using a 4-point scale, and comments were provided for point deductions. The inter-rater agreement was evaluated using weighted kappa coefficients. [Results] ChatGPT demonstrated adequate accuracy in generating content for clinical questions in physical therapy. However, the accuracy of the references was poor, with a significant number of references being non-existent or misinterpreted. [Conclusion] ChatGPT has limitations in reference selection and reliability. While ChatGPT can offer accurate responses to clinical questions in physical therapy, it should be used with caution because it is not a completely reliable model.

A scoping review of ChatGPT's role in healthcare education and research

OBJECTIVES

To examine and consolidate literature regarding the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing ChatGPT in healthcare education and research.

DESIGN/METHODS

We searched seven electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Web of Science) from November 2022 until September 2023. This scoping review adhered to Arksey and O'Malley's framework and followed reporting guidelines outlined in the PRISMA-ScR checklist. For analysis, we employed Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis framework.

RESULTS

A total of 100 studies were included. An overarching theme, "Forging the Future: Bridging Theory and Integration of ChatGPT" emerged, accompanied by two main themes (1) Enhancing Healthcare Education, Research, and Writing with ChatGPT, (2) Controversies and Concerns about ChatGPT in Healthcare Education Research and Writing, and seven subthemes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review underscores the importance of acknowledging legitimate concerns related to the potential misuse of ChatGPT such as 'ChatGPT hallucinations', its limited understanding of specialized healthcare knowledge, its impact on teaching methods and assessments, confidentiality and security risks, and the controversial practice of crediting it as a co-author on scientific papers, among other considerations. Furthermore, our review also recognizes the urgency of establishing timely guidelines and regulations, along with the active engagement of relevant stakeholders, to ensure the responsible and safe implementation of ChatGPT's capabilities. We advocate for the use of cross-verification techniques to enhance the precision and reliability of generated content, the adaptation of higher education curricula to incorporate ChatGPT's potential, educators' need to familiarize themselves with the technology to improve their literacy and teaching approaches, and the development of innovative methods to detect ChatGPT usage. Furthermore, data protection measures should be prioritized when employing ChatGPT, and transparent reporting becomes crucial when integrating ChatGPT into academic writing.

AI vs academia: Experimental study on AI text detectors' accuracy in behavioral health academic writing

Artificial Intelligence (AI) language models continue to expand in both access and capability. As these models have evolved, the number of academic journals in medicine and healthcare which have explored policies regarding AI-generated text has increased. The implementation of such policies requires accurate AI detection tools. Inaccurate detectors risk unnecessary penalties for human authors and/or may compromise the effective enforcement of guidelines against AI-generated content. Yet, the accuracy of AI text detection tools in identifying human-written versus AI-generated content has been found to vary across published studies. This experimental study used a sample of behavioral health publications and found problematic false positive and false negative rates from both free and paid AI detection tools. The study assessed 100 research articles from 2016-2018 in behavioral health and psychiatry journals and 200 texts produced by AI chatbots (100 by "ChatGPT" and 100 by "Claude"). The free AI detector showed a median of 27.2% for the proportion of academic text identified as AI-generated, while commercial software Originality.AI demonstrated better performance but still had limitations, especially in detecting texts generated by Claude. These error rates raise doubts about relying on AI detectors to enforce strict policies around AI text generation in behavioral health publications.

Large Language Models and Artificial Intelligence: A Primer for Plastic Surgeons on the Demonstrated and Potential Applications, Promises, and Limitations of ChatGPT

BACKGROUND

The rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence (AI) holds great potential for plastic surgeons. ChatGPT, a recently released AI large language model (LLM), promises applications across many disciplines, including healthcare.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article was to provide a primer for plastic surgeons on AI, LLM, and ChatGPT, including an analysis of current demonstrated and proposed clinical applications.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed identifying medical and surgical literature on ChatGPT's proposed clinical applications. Variables assessed included applications investigated, command tasks provided, user input information, AI-emulated human skills, output validation, and reported limitations.

RESULTS

The analysis included 175 articles reporting on 13 plastic surgery applications and 116 additional clinical applications, categorized by field and purpose. Thirty-four applications within plastic surgery are thus proposed, with relevance to different target audiences, including attending plastic surgeons (n = 17, 50%), trainees/educators (n = 8, 24.0%), researchers/scholars (n = 7, 21%), and patients (n = 2, 6%). The 15 identified limitations of ChatGPT were categorized by training data, algorithm, and ethical considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

Widespread use of ChatGPT in plastic surgery will depend on rigorous research of proposed applications to validate performance and address limitations. This systemic review aims to guide research, development, and regulation to safely adopt AI in plastic surgery.

Diagnostic accuracy of a large language model in rheumatology: comparison of physician and ChatGPT-4

Pre-clinical studies suggest that large language models (i.e., ChatGPT) could be used in the diagnostic process to distinguish inflammatory rheumatic (IRD) from other diseases. We therefore aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4 in comparison to rheumatologists. For the analysis, the data set of Gräf et al. (2022) was used. Previous patient assessments were analyzed using ChatGPT-4 and compared to rheumatologists' assessments. ChatGPT-4 listed the correct diagnosis comparable often to rheumatologists as the top diagnosis 35% vs 39% (p = 0.30); as well as among the top 3 diagnoses, 60% vs 55%, (p = 0.38). In IRD-positive cases, ChatGPT-4 provided the top diagnosis in 71% vs 62% in the rheumatologists' analysis. Correct diagnosis was among the top 3 in 86% (ChatGPT-4) vs 74% (rheumatologists). In non-IRD cases, ChatGPT-4 provided the correct top diagnosis in 15% vs 27% in the rheumatologists' analysis. Correct diagnosis was among the top 3 in non-IRD cases in 46% of the ChatGPT-4 group vs 45% in the rheumatologists group. If only the first suggestion for diagnosis was considered, ChatGPT-4 correctly classified 58% of cases as IRD compared to 56% of the rheumatologists (p = 0.52). ChatGPT-4 showed a slightly higher accuracy for the top 3 overall diagnoses compared to rheumatologist's assessment. ChatGPT-4 was able to provide the correct differential diagnosis in a relevant number of cases and achieved better sensitivity to detect IRDs than rheumatologist, at the cost of lower specificity. The pilot results highlight the potential of this new technology as a triage tool for the diagnosis of IRD.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Medicine and Healthcare: Applications, Considerations, Limitations, Motivation and Challenges

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force in various sectors, including medicine and healthcare. Large language models like ChatGPT showcase AI's potential by generating human-like text through prompts. ChatGPT's adaptability holds promise for reshaping medical practices, improving patient care, and enhancing interactions among healthcare professionals, patients, and data. In pandemic management, ChatGPT rapidly disseminates vital information. It serves as a virtual assistant in surgical consultations, aids dental practices, simplifies medical education, and aids in disease diagnosis. A total of 82 papers were categorised into eight major areas, which are G1: treatment and medicine, G2: buildings and equipment, G3: parts of the human body and areas of the disease, G4: patients, G5: citizens, G6: cellular imaging, radiology, pulse and medical images, G7: doctors and nurses, and G8: tools, devices and administration. Balancing AI's role with human judgment remains a challenge. A systematic literature review using the PRISMA approach explored AI's transformative potential in healthcare, highlighting ChatGPT's versatile applications, limitations, motivation, and challenges. In conclusion, ChatGPT's diverse medical applications demonstrate its potential for innovation, serving as a valuable resource for students, academics, and researchers in healthcare. Additionally, this study serves as a guide, assisting students, academics, and researchers in the field of medicine and healthcare alike.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and ChatGPT involvement in scientific and medical writing, a new concern for researchers. A scoping review

Purpose

The study aims to evaluate PubMed publications on ChatGPT or artificial intelligence (AI) involvement in scientific or medical writing and investigate whether ChatGPT or AI was used to create these articles or listed as authors.

Design/methodology/approach

This scoping review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A PubMed database search was performed for articles published between January 1 and November 29, 2023, using appropriate search terms; both authors performed screening and selection independently.

Findings

From the initial search results of 127 articles, 41 were eligible for final analysis. Articles were published in 34 journals. Editorials were the most common article type, with 15 (36.6%) articles. Authors originated from 27 countries, and authors from the USA contributed the most, with 14 (34.1%) articles. The most discussed topic was AI tools and writing capabilities in 19 (46.3%) articles. AI or ChatGPT was involved in manuscript preparation in 31 (75.6%) articles. None of the articles listed AI or ChatGPT as an author, and in 19 (46.3%) articles, the authors acknowledged utilizing AI or ChatGPT.

Practical implications

Researchers worldwide are concerned with AI or ChatGPT involvement in scientific research, specifically the writing process. The authors believe that precise and mature regulations will be developed soon by journals, publishers and editors, which will pave the way for the best usage of these tools.

Originality/value

This scoping review expressed data published on using AI or ChatGPT in various scientific research and writing aspects, besides alluding to the advantages, disadvantages and implications of their usage.

Artificial Intelligence-Generated Scientific Literature: A Critical Appraisal

BACKGROUND

Review articles play a critical role in informing medical decisions and identifying avenues for future research. With the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI), there has been a growing interest in the potential of this technology to transform the synthesis of medical literature. Open AI's Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT-4) (Open AI Inc, San Francisco, CA) tool provides access to advanced AI that is able to quickly produce medical literature following only simple prompts. The accuracy of the generated articles requires review, especially in subspecialty fields like Allergy/Immunology.

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise AI-synthesized allergy-focused minireviews.

METHODS

We tasked the GPT-4 Chatbot with generating 2 1,000-word reviews on the topics of hereditary angioedema and eosinophilic esophagitis. Authors critically appraised these articles using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool for text and opinion and additionally evaluated domains of interest such as language, reference quality, and accuracy of the content.

RESULTS

The language of the AI-generated minireviews was carefully articulated and logically focused on the topic of interest; however, reviewers of the AI-generated articles indicated that the AI-generated content lacked depth, did not appear to be the result of an analytical process, missed critical information, and contained inaccurate information. Despite being provided instruction to utilize scientific references, the AI chatbot relied mainly on freely available resources, and the AI chatbot fabricated references.

CONCLUSIONS

The AI holds the potential to change the landscape of synthesizing medical literature; however, apparent inaccurate and fabricated information calls for rigorous evaluation and validation of AI tools in generating medical literature, especially on subjects associated with limited resources.

New evidence-based practice: Artificial intelligence as a barrier breaker

The concept of evidence-based practice has persisted over several years and remains a cornerstone in clinical practice, representing the gold standard for optimal patient care. However, despite widespread recognition of its significance, practical application faces various challenges and barriers, including a lack of skills in interpreting studies, limited resources, time constraints, linguistic competencies, and more. Recently, we have witnessed the emergence of a groundbreaking technological revolution known as artificial intelligence. Although artificial intelligence has become increasingly integrated into our daily lives, some reluctance persists among certain segments of the public. This article explores the potential of artificial intelligence as a solution to some of the main barriers encountered in the application of evidence-based practice. It highlights how artificial intelligence can assist in staying updated with the latest evidence, enhancing clinical decision-making, addressing patient misinformation, and mitigating time constraints in clinical practice. The integration of artificial intelligence into evidence-based practice has the potential to revolutionize healthcare, leading to more precise diagnoses, personalized treatment plans, and improved doctor-patient interactions. This proposed synergy between evidence-based practice and artificial intelligence may necessitate adjustments to its core concept, heralding a new era in healthcare.

Harnessing ChatGPT and GPT-4 for evaluating the rheumatology questions of the Spanish access exam to specialized medical training

The emergence of large language models (LLM) with remarkable performance such as ChatGPT and GPT-4, has led to an unprecedented uptake in the population. One of their most promising and studied applications concerns education due to their ability to understand and generate human-like text, creating a multitude of opportunities for enhancing educational practices and outcomes. The objective of this study is twofold: to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT/GPT-4 in answering rheumatology questions from the access exam to specialized medical training in Spain (MIR), and to evaluate the medical reasoning followed by these LLM to answer those questions. A dataset, RheumaMIR, of 145 rheumatology-related questions, extracted from the exams held between 2010 and 2023, was created for that purpose, used as a prompt for the LLM, and was publicly distributed. Six rheumatologists with clinical and teaching experience evaluated the clinical reasoning of the chatbots using a 5-point Likert scale and their degree of agreement was analyzed. The association between variables that could influence the models' accuracy (i.e., year of the exam question, disease addressed, type of question and genre) was studied. ChatGPT demonstrated a high level of performance in both accuracy, 66.43%, and clinical reasoning, median (Q1-Q3), 4.5 (2.33-4.67). However, GPT-4 showed better performance with an accuracy score of 93.71% and a median clinical reasoning value of 4.67 (4.5-4.83). These findings suggest that LLM may serve as valuable tools in rheumatology education, aiding in exam preparation and supplementing traditional teaching methods.

Innovating Personalized Nephrology Care: Exploring the Potential Utilization of ChatGPT

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, particularly machine learning, has brought substantial progress to the field of nephrology, enabling significant improvements in the management of kidney diseases. ChatGPT, a revolutionary language model developed by OpenAI, is a versatile AI model designed to engage in meaningful and informative conversations. Its applications in healthcare have been notable, with demonstrated proficiency in various medical knowledge assessments. However, ChatGPT's performance varies across different medical subfields, posing challenges in nephrology-related queries. At present, comprehensive reviews regarding ChatGPT's potential applications in nephrology remain lacking despite the surge of interest in its role in various domains. This article seeks to fill this gap by presenting an overview of the integration of ChatGPT in nephrology. It discusses the potential benefits of ChatGPT in nephrology, encompassing dataset management, diagnostics, treatment planning, and patient communication and education, as well as medical research and education. It also explores ethical and legal concerns regarding the utilization of AI in medical practice. The continuous development of AI models like ChatGPT holds promise for the healthcare realm but also underscores the necessity of thorough evaluation and validation before implementing AI in real-world medical scenarios. This review serves as a valuable resource for nephrologists and healthcare professionals interested in fully utilizing the potential of AI in innovating personalized nephrology care.

ChatGPT-4 and Human Researchers Are Equal in Writing Scientific Introduction Sections: A Blinded, Randomized, Non-inferiority Controlled Study

Background Natural language processing models are increasingly used in scientific research, and their ability to perform various tasks in the research process is rapidly advancing. This study aims to investigate whether Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) is equal to humans in writing introduction sections for scientific articles. Methods This randomized non-inferiority study was reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for non-inferiority trials and artificial intelligence (AI) guidelines. GPT-4 was instructed to synthesize 18 introduction sections based on the aim of previously published studies, and these sections were compared to the human-written introductions already published in a medical journal. Eight blinded assessors randomly evaluated the introduction sections using 1-10 Likert scales. Results There was no significant difference between GPT-4 and human introductions regarding publishability and content quality. GPT-4 had one point significantly better scores in readability, which was considered a non-relevant difference. The majority of assessors (59%) preferred GPT-4, while 33% preferred human-written introductions. Based on Lix and Flesch-Kincaid scores, GPT-4 introductions were 10 and two points higher, respectively, indicating that the sentences were longer and had longer words. Conclusion GPT-4 was found to be equal to humans in writing introductions regarding publishability, readability, and content quality. The majority of assessors preferred GPT-4 introductions and less than half could determine which were written by GPT-4 or humans. These findings suggest that GPT-4 can be a useful tool for writing introduction sections, and further studies should evaluate its ability to write other parts of scientific articles.

ChatGPT's Epoch in Rheumatological Diagnostics: A Critical Assessment in the Context of Sjögren's Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

The rise of artificial intelligence in medical practice is reshaping clinical care. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have the potential to assist in rheumatology by personalizing scientific information retrieval, particularly in the context of Sjögren's Syndrome. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ChatGPT in providing insights into Sjögren's Syndrome, differentiating it from other rheumatological conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 A database of peer-reviewed articles and clinical guidelines focused on Sjögren's Syndrome was compiled. Clinically relevant questions were presented to ChatGPT, with responses assessed for accuracy, relevance, and comprehensiveness. Techniques such as blinding, random control queries, and temporal analysis ensured unbiased evaluation. ChatGPT's responses were also assessed using the 15-questionnaire DISCERN tool.

RESULTS

 ChatGPT effectively highlighted key immunopathological and histopathological characteristics of Sjögren's Syndrome, though some crucial data and citation inconsistencies were noted. For a given clinical vignette, ChatGPT correctly identified potential etiological considerations with Sjögren's Syndrome being prominent.

DISCUSSION

 LLMs like ChatGPT offer rapid access to vast amounts of data, beneficial for both patients and providers. While it democratizes information, limitations like potential oversimplification and reference inaccuracies were observed. The balance between LLM insights and clinical judgment, as well as continuous model refinement, is crucial.

CONCLUSION

 LLMs like ChatGPT offer significant potential in rheumatology, providing swift and broad medical insights. However, a cautious approach is vital, ensuring rigorous training and ethical application for optimal patient care and clinical practice.