Michel Abdel Malek, Monique van Velzen, Albert Dahan, Chris Martini, Elske Sitsen, Elise Sarton, Martijn Boon
{"title":"Generation of preoperative anaesthetic plans by ChatGPT-4.0: a mixed-method study.","authors":"Michel Abdel Malek, Monique van Velzen, Albert Dahan, Chris Martini, Elske Sitsen, Elise Sarton, Martijn Boon","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled development of natural language algorithms capable of generating coherent texts. We evaluated the quality, validity, and safety of this generative AI in preoperative anaesthetic planning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this exploratory, single-centre, convergent mixed-method study, 10 clinical vignettes were randomly selected, and ChatGPT (OpenAI, 4.0) was prompted to create anaesthetic plans, including cardiopulmonary risk assessment, intraoperative anaesthesia technique, and postoperative management. A quantitative assessment compared these plans with those made by eight senior anaesthesia consultants. A qualitative assessment was performed by an adjudication committee through focus group discussion and thematic analysis. Agreement on cardiopulmonary risk assessment was calculated using weighted Kappa, with descriptive data representation for other outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT anaesthetic plans showed variable agreement with consultants' plans. ChatGPT, the survey panel, and adjudication committee frequently disagreed on cardiopulmonary risk estimation. The ChatGPT answers were repetitive and lacked variety, evidenced by the strong preference for general anaesthesia and absence of locoregional techniques. It also showed inconsistent choices regarding airway management, postoperative analgesia, and medication use. While some differences were not deemed clinically significant, subpar postoperative pain management advice and failure to recommend tracheal intubation for patients at high risk for pulmonary aspiration were considered inappropriate recommendations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Preoperative anaesthetic plans generated by ChatGPT did not consistently meet minimum clinical standards and were unlikely the result of clinical reasoning. Therefore, ChatGPT is currently not recommended for preoperative planning. Future large language models trained on anaesthesia-specific datasets might improve performance but should undergo vigorous evaluation before use in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.038","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled development of natural language algorithms capable of generating coherent texts. We evaluated the quality, validity, and safety of this generative AI in preoperative anaesthetic planning.
Methods: In this exploratory, single-centre, convergent mixed-method study, 10 clinical vignettes were randomly selected, and ChatGPT (OpenAI, 4.0) was prompted to create anaesthetic plans, including cardiopulmonary risk assessment, intraoperative anaesthesia technique, and postoperative management. A quantitative assessment compared these plans with those made by eight senior anaesthesia consultants. A qualitative assessment was performed by an adjudication committee through focus group discussion and thematic analysis. Agreement on cardiopulmonary risk assessment was calculated using weighted Kappa, with descriptive data representation for other outcomes.
Results: ChatGPT anaesthetic plans showed variable agreement with consultants' plans. ChatGPT, the survey panel, and adjudication committee frequently disagreed on cardiopulmonary risk estimation. The ChatGPT answers were repetitive and lacked variety, evidenced by the strong preference for general anaesthesia and absence of locoregional techniques. It also showed inconsistent choices regarding airway management, postoperative analgesia, and medication use. While some differences were not deemed clinically significant, subpar postoperative pain management advice and failure to recommend tracheal intubation for patients at high risk for pulmonary aspiration were considered inappropriate recommendations.
Conclusions: Preoperative anaesthetic plans generated by ChatGPT did not consistently meet minimum clinical standards and were unlikely the result of clinical reasoning. Therefore, ChatGPT is currently not recommended for preoperative planning. Future large language models trained on anaesthesia-specific datasets might improve performance but should undergo vigorous evaluation before use in clinical practice.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience.
The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence.
Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.