Using ChatGPT to Provide Patient-Specific Answers to Parental Questions in the PICU.

IF 6.2 2区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
R Brandon Hunter, Satid Thammasitboon, Sreya S Rahman, Nina Fainberg, Andrew Renuart, Shelley Kumar, Parag N Jain, Brian Rissmiller, Moushumi Sur, Sanjiv Mehta
{"title":"Using ChatGPT to Provide Patient-Specific Answers to Parental Questions in the PICU.","authors":"R Brandon Hunter, Satid Thammasitboon, Sreya S Rahman, Nina Fainberg, Andrew Renuart, Shelley Kumar, Parag N Jain, Brian Rissmiller, Moushumi Sur, Sanjiv Mehta","doi":"10.1542/peds.2024-066615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine if ChatGPT can incorporate patient-specific information to provide high-quality answers to parental questions in the PICU. We hypothesized that ChatGPT would generate high-quality, patient-specific responses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, we generated assessments and plans for 3 PICU patients with respiratory failure, septic shock, and status epilepticus and paired them with 8 typical parental questions. We prompted ChatGPT with instructions, an assessment and plan, and 1 question. Six PICU physicians evaluated the responses for accuracy (1-6), completeness (yes/no), empathy (1-6), and understandability (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, PEMAT, 0% to 100%; Flesch-Kincaid grade level). We compared answer quality among scenarios and question types using the Kruskal-Wallis and Fischer's exact tests. We used percent agreement, Cohen's Kappa, and Gwet's agreement coefficient to estimate inter-rater reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All answers incorporated patient details, utilizing them for reasoning in 59% of sentences. Responses had high accuracy (median 5.0, [interquartile range (IQR), 4.0-6.0]), empathy (median 5.0, [IQR, 5.0-6.0]), completeness (97% of all questions), and understandability (PEMAT % median 100, [IQR, 87.5-100]; Flesch-Kincaid level 8.7). Only 4/144 reviewer scores were <4/6 in accuracy, and no response was deemed likely to cause harm. There was no difference in accuracy, completeness, empathy, or understandability among scenarios or question types. We found fair, substantial, and almost perfect agreement among reviewers for accuracy, empathy, and understandability, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT used patient-specific information to provide high-quality answers to parental questions in PICU clinical scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":20028,"journal":{"name":"Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024-066615","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To determine if ChatGPT can incorporate patient-specific information to provide high-quality answers to parental questions in the PICU. We hypothesized that ChatGPT would generate high-quality, patient-specific responses.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we generated assessments and plans for 3 PICU patients with respiratory failure, septic shock, and status epilepticus and paired them with 8 typical parental questions. We prompted ChatGPT with instructions, an assessment and plan, and 1 question. Six PICU physicians evaluated the responses for accuracy (1-6), completeness (yes/no), empathy (1-6), and understandability (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, PEMAT, 0% to 100%; Flesch-Kincaid grade level). We compared answer quality among scenarios and question types using the Kruskal-Wallis and Fischer's exact tests. We used percent agreement, Cohen's Kappa, and Gwet's agreement coefficient to estimate inter-rater reliability.

Results: All answers incorporated patient details, utilizing them for reasoning in 59% of sentences. Responses had high accuracy (median 5.0, [interquartile range (IQR), 4.0-6.0]), empathy (median 5.0, [IQR, 5.0-6.0]), completeness (97% of all questions), and understandability (PEMAT % median 100, [IQR, 87.5-100]; Flesch-Kincaid level 8.7). Only 4/144 reviewer scores were <4/6 in accuracy, and no response was deemed likely to cause harm. There was no difference in accuracy, completeness, empathy, or understandability among scenarios or question types. We found fair, substantial, and almost perfect agreement among reviewers for accuracy, empathy, and understandability, respectively.

Conclusions: ChatGPT used patient-specific information to provide high-quality answers to parental questions in PICU clinical scenarios.

在重症监护病房使用 ChatGPT 为家长提供针对患者的问题解答。
目的确定 ChatGPT 是否能结合患者的特定信息,为 PICU 中家长的问题提供高质量的回答。我们假设 ChatGPT 将生成高质量的、针对特定患者的回答:在这项横断面研究中,我们为 3 名患有呼吸衰竭、脓毒性休克和癫痫状态的 PICU 患者生成了评估和计划,并将它们与 8 个典型的家长问题配对。我们向 ChatGPT 提供了说明、评估和计划以及一个问题。六名 PICU 医生对回答的准确性(1-6)、完整性(是/否)、共鸣(1-6)和可理解性(患者教育材料评估工具,PEMAT,0% 到 100%; Flesch-Kincaid 等级)进行了评估。我们使用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验和 Fischer's 精确检验比较了不同场景和问题类型的答案质量。我们使用一致性百分比、Cohen's Kappa 和 Gwet's 一致性系数来估计评分者之间的可靠性:所有答案都包含了患者的详细资料,59%的句子利用这些资料进行推理。回答的准确性(中位数 5.0,[四分位数间距 (IQR),4.0-6.0])、共情性(中位数 5.0,[四分位数间距 (IQR),5.0-6.0])、完整性(所有问题的 97%)和可理解性(PEMAT % 中位数 100,[四分位数间距 (IQR),87.5-100];Flesch-Kincaid 等级 8.7)都很高。只有 4/144 位评审员的评分为结论:ChatGPT 在 PICU 临床场景中利用患者的特定信息为家长的问题提供了高质量的答案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pediatrics
Pediatrics 医学-小儿科
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
791
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The Pediatrics® journal is the official flagship journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). It is widely cited in the field of pediatric medicine and is recognized as the leading journal in the field. The journal publishes original research and evidence-based articles, which provide authoritative information to help readers stay up-to-date with the latest developments in pediatric medicine. The content is peer-reviewed and undergoes rigorous evaluation to ensure its quality and reliability. Pediatrics also serves as a valuable resource for conducting new research studies and supporting education and training activities in the field of pediatrics. It aims to enhance the quality of pediatric outpatient and inpatient care by disseminating valuable knowledge and insights. As of 2023, Pediatrics has an impressive Journal Impact Factor (IF) Score of 8.0. The IF is a measure of a journal's influence and importance in the scientific community, with higher scores indicating a greater impact. This score reflects the significance and reach of the research published in Pediatrics, further establishing its prominence in the field of pediatric medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信