The Use of Chatbots in Oncological Care: A Narrative Review

Evaluation of online chat-based artificial intelligence responses about inflammatory bowel disease and diet

INTRODUCTION

The USA has the highest age-standardized prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Both genetic and environmental factors have been implicated in IBD flares and multiple strategies are centered around avoiding dietary triggers to maintain remission. Chat-based artificial intelligence (CB-AI) has shown great potential in enhancing patient education in medicine. We evaluate the role of CB-AI in patient education on dietary management of IBD.

METHODS

Six questions evaluating important concepts about the dietary management of IBD which then were posed to three CB-AI models - ChatGPT, BingChat, and YouChat three different times. All responses were graded for appropriateness and reliability by two physicians using dietary information from the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation. The responses were graded as reliably appropriate, reliably inappropriate, and unreliable. The expert assessment of the reviewing physicians was validated by the joint probability of agreement for two raters.

RESULTS

ChatGPT provided reliably appropriate responses to questions on dietary management of IBD more often than BingChat and YouChat. There were two questions that more than one CB-AI provided unreliable responses to. Each CB-AI provided examples within their responses, but the examples were not always appropriate. Whether the response was appropriate or not, CB-AIs mentioned consulting with an expert in the field. The inter-rater reliability was 88.9%.

DISCUSSION

CB-AIs have the potential to improve patient education and outcomes but studies evaluating their appropriateness for various health conditions are sparse. Our study showed that CB-AIs have the ability to provide appropriate answers to most questions regarding the dietary management of IBD.

Roles, Users, Benefits, and Limitations of Chatbots in Health Care: Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Chatbots, or conversational agents, have emerged as significant tools in health care, driven by advancements in artificial intelligence and digital technology. These programs are designed to simulate human conversations, addressing various health care needs. However, no comprehensive synthesis of health care chatbots' roles, users, benefits, and limitations is available to inform future research and application in the field.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to describe health care chatbots' characteristics, focusing on their diverse roles in the health care pathway, user groups, benefits, and limitations.

METHODS

A rapid review of published literature from 2017 to 2023 was performed with a search strategy developed in collaboration with a health sciences librarian and implemented in the MEDLINE and Embase databases. Primary research studies reporting on chatbot roles or benefits in health care were included. Two reviewers dual-screened the search results. Extracted data on chatbot roles, users, benefits, and limitations were subjected to content analysis.

RESULTS

The review categorized chatbot roles into 2 themes: delivery of remote health services, including patient support, care management, education, skills building, and health behavior promotion, and provision of administrative assistance to health care providers. User groups spanned across patients with chronic conditions as well as patients with cancer; individuals focused on lifestyle improvements; and various demographic groups such as women, families, and older adults. Professionals and students in health care also emerged as significant users, alongside groups seeking mental health support, behavioral change, and educational enhancement. The benefits of health care chatbots were also classified into 2 themes: improvement of health care quality and efficiency and cost-effectiveness in health care delivery. The identified limitations encompassed ethical challenges, medicolegal and safety concerns, technical difficulties, user experience issues, and societal and economic impacts.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care chatbots offer a wide spectrum of applications, potentially impacting various aspects of health care. While they are promising tools for improving health care efficiency and quality, their integration into the health care system must be approached with consideration of their limitations to ensure optimal, safe, and equitable use.

The Current Application and Future Potential of Artificial Intelligence in Renal Cancer

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the integration of human tasks into machine processes. The role of AI in kidney cancer evaluation, management, and outcome predictions are constantly evolving. We performed a narrative review utilizing PubMed electronic database to query AI as a method of analysis in kidney cancer research. Key search-words included: Artificial Intelligence, Supervised/Unsupervised Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Natural Language Processing, Neural Networks, radiomics, pathomics, and kidney or renal neoplasms or cancer. 72 clinically relevant and impactful studies related to imaging, histopathology, and outcomes were recognized. We anticipate the incorporation of AI tools into future clinical decision-making for kidney cancer.

Readability and Information Quality in Cancer Information From a Free vs Paid Chatbot

Importance

The mainstream use of chatbots requires a thorough investigation of their readability and quality of information.

Objective

To identify readability and quality differences in information between a free and paywalled chatbot cancer-related responses, and to explore if more precise prompting can mitigate any observed differences.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study compared readability and information quality of a chatbot's free vs paywalled responses with Google Trends' top 5 search queries associated with breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and skin cancers from January 1, 2021, to January 1, 2023. Data were extracted from the search tracker, and responses were produced by free and paywalled ChatGPT. Data were analyzed from December 20, 2023, to January 15, 2024.

Exposures

Free vs paywalled chatbot outputs with and without prompt: "Explain the following at a sixth grade reading level: [nonprompted input]."

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measured the readability of a chatbot's responses using Flesch Reading Ease scores (0 [graduate reading level] to 100 [easy fifth grade reading level]). Secondary outcomes included assessing consumer health information quality with the validated DISCERN instrument (overall score from 1 [low quality] to 5 [high quality]) for each response. Scores were compared between the 2 chatbot models with and without prompting.

Results

This study evaluated 100 chatbot responses. Nonprompted free chatbot responses had lower readability (median [IQR] Flesh Reading ease scores, 52.60 [44.54-61.46]) than nonprompted paywalled chatbot responses (62.48 [54.83-68.40]) (P < .05). However, prompting the free chatbot to reword responses at a sixth grade reading level was associated with increased reading ease scores than the paywalled chatbot nonprompted responses (median [IQR], 71.55 [68.20-78.99]) (P < .001). Prompting was associated with increases in reading ease in both free (median [IQR], 71.55 [68.20-78.99]; P < .001)and paywalled versions (median [IQR], 75.64 [70.53-81.12]; P < .001). There was no significant difference in overall DISCERN scores between the chatbot models, with and without prompting.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, paying for the chatbot was found to provide easier-to-read responses, but prompting the free version of the chatbot was associated with increased response readability without changing information quality. Educating the public on how to prompt chatbots may help promote equitable access to health information.

Promoting Artificial Intelligence for Global Breast Cancer Risk Prediction and Screening in Adult Women: A Scoping Review

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can be applied in breast cancer risk prediction and prevention by using patient history, scans, imaging information, and analysis of specific genes for cancer classification to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This scoping review aimed to identify the barriers encountered in applying innovative AI techniques and models in developing breast cancer risk prediction scores and promoting screening behaviors among adult females. Findings may inform and guide future global recommendations for AI application in breast cancer prevention and care for female populations. Methods: The PRISMA-SCR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) was used as a reference checklist throughout this study. The Arksey and O'Malley methodology was used as a framework to guide this review. The framework methodology consisted of five steps: (1) Identify research questions; (2) Search for relevant studies; (3) Selection of studies relevant to the research questions; (4) Chart the data; (5) Collate, summarize, and report the results. Results: In the field of breast cancer risk detection and prevention, the following AI techniques and models have been applied: Machine and Deep Learning Model (ML-DL model) (n = 1), Academic Algorithms (n = 2), Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), Clinical 5-Year Risk Prediction Model (n = 2), deep-learning computer vision AI algorithms (n = 2), AI-based thermal imaging solution (Thermalytix) (n = 1), RealRisks (n = 2), Breast Cancer Risk NAVIgation (n = 1), MammoRisk (ML-Based Tool) (n = 1), Various MLModels (n = 1), and various machine/deep learning, decision aids, and commercial algorithms (n = 7). In the 11 included studies, a total of 39 barriers to AI applications in breast cancer risk prediction and screening efforts were identified. The most common barriers in the application of innovative AI tools for breast cancer prediction and improved screening rates included lack of external validity and limited generalizability (n = 6), as AI was used in studies with either a small sample size or datasets with missing data. Many studies (n = 5) also encountered selection bias due to exclusion of certain populations based on characteristics such as race/ethnicity, family history, or past medical history. Several recommendations for future research should be considered. AI models need to include a broader spectrum and more complete predictive variables for risk assessment. Investigating long-term outcomes with improved follow-up periods is critical to assess the impacts of AI on clinical decisions beyond just the immediate outcomes. Utilizing AI to improve communication strategies at both a local and organizational level can assist in informed decision-making and compliance, especially in populations with limited literacy levels. Conclusions: The use of AI in patient education and as an adjunctive tool for providers is still early in its incorporation, and future research should explore the implementation of AI-driven resources to enhance understanding and decision-making regarding breast cancer screening, especially in vulnerable populations with limited literacy.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of family cancer history collection tools in oncology clinical practices

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of family cancer history (FCH) collection tools in clinical practices and community settings by assessing clinicians' perceptions of implementing a chatbot interface to collect FCH information and provide personalized results to patients and providers.

OBJECTIVES

By identifying design and implementation features that facilitate tool adoption and integration into clinical workflows, this study can inform future FCH tool development and adoption in healthcare settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quantitative data were collected using survey to evaluate the implementation outcomes of acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, and sustainability of the chatbot tool for collecting FCH. Semistructured interviews were conducted to gather qualitative data on respondents' experiences using the tool and recommendations for enhancements.

RESULTS

We completed data collection with 19 providers (n = 9, 47%), clinical staff (n = 5, 26%), administrators (n = 4, 21%), and other staff (n = 1, 5%) affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. FCH was systematically collected using a wide range of tools at sites, with information being inserted into the patient's medical record. Participants found the chatbot tool to be highly acceptable, with the tool aligning with existing workflows, and were open to adopting the tool into their practice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We further the evidence base about the appropriateness of scripted chatbots to support FCH collection. Although the tool had strong support, the varying clinical workflows across clinic sites necessitate that future FCH tool development accommodates customizable implementation strategies. Implementation support is necessary to overcome technical and logistical barriers to enhance the uptake of FCH tools in clinical practices and community settings.

Does Google's Bard Chatbot perform better than ChatGPT on the European hand surgery exam?

PURPOSE

According to a previous research, the chatbot ChatGPT® V3.5 was unable to pass the first part of the European Board of Hand Surgery (EBHS) diploma examination. This study aimed to investigate whether Google's chatbot Bard® would have superior performance compared to ChatGPT on the EBHS diploma examination.

METHODS

Chatbots were asked to answer 18 EBHS multiple choice questions (MCQs) published in the Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) in five trials (A1 to A5). After A3, chatbots received correct answers, and after A4, incorrect answers. Consequently, their ability to modify their response was measured and compared.

RESULTS

Bard® scored 3/18 (A1), 1/18 (A2), 4/18 (A3) and 2/18 (A4 and A5). The average percentage of correct answers was 61.1% for A1, 62.2% for A2, 64.4% for A3, 65.6% for A4, 63.3% for A5 and 63.3% for all trials combined. Agreement was moderate from A1 to A5 (kappa = 0.62 (IC95% = [0.51; 0.73])) as well as from A1 to A3 (kappa = 0.60 (IC95% = [0.47; 0.74])). The formulation of Bard® responses was homogeneous, but its learning capacity is still developing.

CONCLUSIONS

The main hypothesis of our study was not proved since Bard did not score significantly higher than ChatGPT when answering the MCQs of the EBHS diploma exam. In conclusion, neither ChatGPT® nor Bard®, in their current versions, can pass the first part of the EBHS diploma exam.

A New Era of Dental Care: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Better Diagnosis and Treatment

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into dental care holds the promise of revolutionizing the field by enhancing the accuracy of dental diagnosis and treatment. This paper explores the impact of AI in dental care, with a focus on its applications in diagnosis, treatment planning, and patient engagement. AI-driven dental imaging and radiography, computer-aided detection and diagnosis of dental conditions, and early disease detection and prevention are discussed in detail. Moreover, the paper delves into how AI assists in personalized treatment planning and provides predictive analytics for dental care. Ethical and privacy considerations, including data security, fairness, and regulatory aspects, are addressed, highlighting the need for a responsible and transparent approach to AI implementation. Finally, the paper underscores the potential for a collaborative partnership between AI and dental professionals to offer the best possible care to patients, making dental care more efficient, patient-centric, and effective. The advent of AI in dentistry presents a remarkable opportunity to improve oral health outcomes, benefiting both patients and the healthcare community.