Snakebite Advice and Counseling From Artificial Intelligence: An Acute Venomous Snakebite Consultation With ChatGPT

The scientific knowledge of three large language models in cardiology: multiple-choice questions examination-based performance

Background

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots like Google's Bard, OpenAI's ChatGPT, and Microsoft's Bing Chatbot into academic and professional domains, including cardiology, has been rapidly evolving. Their application in educational and research frameworks, however, raises questions about their efficacy, particularly in specialized fields like cardiology. This study aims to evaluate the knowledge depth and accuracy of these AI chatbots in cardiology using a multiple-choice question (MCQ) format.

Methods

The study was conducted as an exploratory, cross-sectional study in November 2023 on a bank of 100 MCQs covering various cardiology topics that was created from authoritative textbooks and question banks. These MCQs were then used to assess the knowledge level of Google's Bard, Microsoft Bing, and ChatGPT 4.0. Each question was entered manually into the chatbots, ensuring no memory retention bias.

Results

The study found that ChatGPT 4.0 demonstrated the highest knowledge score in cardiology, with 87% accuracy, followed by Bing at 60% and Bard at 46%. The performance varied across different cardiology subtopics, with ChatGPT consistently outperforming the others. Notably, the study revealed significant differences in the proficiency of these chatbots in specific cardiology domains.

Conclusion

This study highlights a spectrum of efficacy among AI chatbots in disseminating cardiology knowledge. ChatGPT 4.0 emerged as a potential auxiliary educational resource in cardiology, surpassing traditional learning methods in some aspects. However, the variability in performance among these AI systems underscores the need for cautious evaluation and continuous improvement, especially for chatbots like Bard, to ensure reliability and accuracy in medical knowledge dissemination.

The Role of Large Language Models in Transforming Emergency Medicine: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI), more specifically large language models (LLMs), holds significant potential in revolutionizing emergency care delivery by optimizing clinical workflows and enhancing the quality of decision-making. Although enthusiasm for integrating LLMs into emergency medicine (EM) is growing, the existing literature is characterized by a disparate collection of individual studies, conceptual analyses, and preliminary implementations. Given these complexities and gaps in understanding, a cohesive framework is needed to comprehend the existing body of knowledge on the application of LLMs in EM.

OBJECTIVE

Given the absence of a comprehensive framework for exploring the roles of LLMs in EM, this scoping review aims to systematically map the existing literature on LLMs' potential applications within EM and identify directions for future research. Addressing this gap will allow for informed advancements in the field.

METHODS

Using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) criteria, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for papers published between January 2018 and August 2023 that discussed LLMs' use in EM. We excluded other forms of AI. A total of 1994 unique titles and abstracts were screened, and each full-text paper was independently reviewed by 2 authors. Data were abstracted independently, and 5 authors performed a collaborative quantitative and qualitative synthesis of the data.

RESULTS

A total of 43 papers were included. Studies were predominantly from 2022 to 2023 and conducted in the United States and China. We uncovered four major themes: (1) clinical decision-making and support was highlighted as a pivotal area, with LLMs playing a substantial role in enhancing patient care, notably through their application in real-time triage, allowing early recognition of patient urgency; (2) efficiency, workflow, and information management demonstrated the capacity of LLMs to significantly boost operational efficiency, particularly through the automation of patient record synthesis, which could reduce administrative burden and enhance patient-centric care; (3) risks, ethics, and transparency were identified as areas of concern, especially regarding the reliability of LLMs' outputs, and specific studies highlighted the challenges of ensuring unbiased decision-making amidst potentially flawed training data sets, stressing the importance of thorough validation and ethical oversight; and (4) education and communication possibilities included LLMs' capacity to enrich medical training, such as through using simulated patient interactions that enhance communication skills.

CONCLUSIONS

LLMs have the potential to fundamentally transform EM, enhancing clinical decision-making, optimizing workflows, and improving patient outcomes. This review sets the stage for future advancements by identifying key research areas: prospective validation of LLM applications, establishing standards for responsible use, understanding provider and patient perceptions, and improving physicians' AI literacy. Effective integration of LLMs into EM will require collaborative efforts and thorough evaluation to ensure these technologies can be safely and effectively applied.

A Systematic Review of ChatGPT and Other Conversational Large Language Models in Healthcare

Background

The launch of the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) in November 2022 has attracted public attention and academic interest to large language models (LLMs), facilitating the emergence of many other innovative LLMs. These LLMs have been applied in various fields, including healthcare. Numerous studies have since been conducted regarding how to employ state-of-the-art LLMs in health-related scenarios to assist patients, doctors, and public health administrators.

Objective

This review aims to summarize the applications and concerns of applying conversational LLMs in healthcare and provide an agenda for future research on LLMs in healthcare.

Methods

We utilized PubMed, ACM, and IEEE digital libraries as primary sources for this review. We followed the guidance of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRIMSA) to screen and select peer-reviewed research articles that (1) were related to both healthcare applications and conversational LLMs and (2) were published before September 1st, 2023, the date when we started paper collection and screening. We investigated these papers and classified them according to their applications and concerns.

Results

Our search initially identified 820 papers according to targeted keywords, out of which 65 papers met our criteria and were included in the review. The most popular conversational LLM was ChatGPT from OpenAI (60), followed by Bard from Google (1), Large Language Model Meta AI (LLaMA) from Meta (1), and other LLMs (5). These papers were classified into four categories in terms of their applications: 1) summarization, 2) medical knowledge inquiry, 3) prediction, and 4) administration, and four categories of concerns: 1) reliability, 2) bias, 3) privacy, and 4) public acceptability. There are 49 (75%) research papers using LLMs for summarization and/or medical knowledge inquiry, and 58 (89%) research papers expressing concerns about reliability and/or bias. We found that conversational LLMs exhibit promising results in summarization and providing medical knowledge to patients with a relatively high accuracy. However, conversational LLMs like ChatGPT are not able to provide reliable answers to complex health-related tasks that require specialized domain expertise. Additionally, no experiments in our reviewed papers have been conducted to thoughtfully examine how conversational LLMs lead to bias or privacy issues in healthcare research.

Conclusions

Future studies should focus on improving the reliability of LLM applications in complex health-related tasks, as well as investigating the mechanisms of how LLM applications brought bias and privacy issues. Considering the vast accessibility of LLMs, legal, social, and technical efforts are all needed to address concerns about LLMs to promote, improve, and regularize the application of LLMs in healthcare.

ChatGPT Yields a Passing Score on a Pediatric Board Preparatory Exam but Raises Red Flags

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the performance of a publicly-available online artificial intelligence program (OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and -4.0, August 3 versions) on a pediatric board preparatory examination, 2021 and 2022 PREP® Self-Assessment, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

Methods

We entered 245 questions and answer choices from the Pediatrics 2021 PREP® Self-Assessment and 247 questions and answer choices from the Pediatrics 2022 PREP® Self-Assessment into OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0, August 3 versions, in September 2023. The ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 scores were compared with the advertised passing scores (70%+) for the PREP® exams and the average scores (74.09%) and (75.71%) for all 10 715 and 6825 first-time human test takers.

Results

For the AAP 2021 and 2022 PREP® Self-Assessments, ChatGPT-3.5 answered 143 of 243 (58.85%) and 137 of 247 (55.46%) questions correctly on a single attempt. ChatGPT-4.0 answered 193 of 243 (79.84%) and 208 of 247 (84.21%) questions correctly.

Conclusion

Using a publicly-available online chatbot to answer pediatric board preparatory examination questions yielded a passing score but demonstrated significant limitations in the chatbot's ability to assess some complex medical situations in children, posing a potential risk to this vulnerable population.

A Preliminary Checklist (METRICS) to Standardize the Design and Reporting of Studies on Generative Artificial Intelligence-Based Models in Health Care Education and Practice: Development Study Involving a Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Adherence to evidence-based practice is indispensable in health care. Recently, the utility of generative artificial intelligence (AI) models in health care has been evaluated extensively. However, the lack of consensus guidelines on the design and reporting of findings of these studies poses a challenge for the interpretation and synthesis of evidence.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop a preliminary checklist to standardize the reporting of generative AI-based studies in health care education and practice.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Published records with "ChatGPT," "Bing," or "Bard" in the title were retrieved. Careful examination of the methodologies employed in the included records was conducted to identify the common pertinent themes and the possible gaps in reporting. A panel discussion was held to establish a unified and thorough checklist for the reporting of AI studies in health care. The finalized checklist was used to evaluate the included records by 2 independent raters. Cohen κ was used as the method to evaluate the interrater reliability.

RESULTS

The final data set that formed the basis for pertinent theme identification and analysis comprised a total of 34 records. The finalized checklist included 9 pertinent themes collectively referred to as METRICS (Model, Evaluation, Timing, Range/Randomization, Individual factors, Count, and Specificity of prompts and language). Their details are as follows: (1) Model used and its exact settings; (2) Evaluation approach for the generated content; (3) Timing of testing the model; (4) Transparency of the data source; (5) Range of tested topics; (6) Randomization of selecting the queries; (7) Individual factors in selecting the queries and interrater reliability; (8) Count of queries executed to test the model; and (9) Specificity of the prompts and language used. The overall mean METRICS score was 3.0 (SD 0.58). The tested METRICS score was acceptable, with the range of Cohen κ of 0.558 to 0.962 (P<.001 for the 9 tested items). With classification per item, the highest average METRICS score was recorded for the "Model" item, followed by the "Specificity" item, while the lowest scores were recorded for the "Randomization" item (classified as suboptimal) and "Individual factors" item (classified as satisfactory).

CONCLUSIONS

The METRICS checklist can facilitate the design of studies guiding researchers toward best practices in reporting results. The findings highlight the need for standardized reporting algorithms for generative AI-based studies in health care, considering the variability observed in methodologies and reporting. The proposed METRICS checklist could be a preliminary helpful base to establish a universally accepted approach to standardize the design and reporting of generative AI-based studies in health care, which is a swiftly evolving research topic.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chatbots in Medicine: A Supplement, Not a Substitute

This editorial discusses the role of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots in the healthcare sector, emphasizing their potential as supplements rather than substitutes for medical professionals. While AI chatbots have demonstrated significant potential in managing routine tasks, processing vast amounts of data, and aiding in patient education, they still lack the empathy, intuition, and experience intrinsic to human healthcare providers. Furthermore, the deployment of AI in medicine brings forth ethical and legal considerations that require robust regulatory measures. As we move towards the future, the editorial underscores the importance of a collaborative model, wherein AI chatbots and medical professionals work together to optimize patient outcomes. Despite the potential for AI advancements, the likelihood of chatbots completely replacing medical professionals remains low, as the complexity of healthcare necessitates human involvement. The ultimate aim should be to use technology like AI chatbots to enhance patient care and outcomes, not to replace the irreplaceable human elements of healthcare.