Large language model doctor: assessing the ability of ChatGPT-4 to deliver interventional radiology procedural information to patients during the consent process.

IF 1.2 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Hayden L Hofmann, Jenanan Vairavamurthy
{"title":"Large language model doctor: assessing the ability of ChatGPT-4 to deliver interventional radiology procedural information to patients during the consent process.","authors":"Hayden L Hofmann, Jenanan Vairavamurthy","doi":"10.1186/s42155-024-00477-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The study aims to evaluate how current interventional radiologists view ChatGPT in the context of informed consent for interventional radiology (IR) procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ChatGPT-4 was instructed to outline the risks, benefits, and alternatives for IR procedures. The outputs were reviewed by IR physicians to assess if outputs were 1) accurate, 2) comprehensive, 3) easy to understand, 4) written in a conversational tone, and 5) if they were comfortable providing the output to the patient. For each criterion, outputs were measured on a 5-point scale. Mean scores and percentage of physicians rating output as sufficient (4 or 5 on 5-point scale) were measured. A linear regression correlated mean rating with number of years in practice. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) measured agreement among physicians.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean rating of the ChatGPT responses was 4.29, 3.85, 4.15, 4.24, 3.82 for accuracy, comprehensiveness, readability, conversational tone, and physician comfort level, respectively. Percentage of physicians rating outputs as sufficient was 84%, 71%, 85%, 85%, and 67% for accuracy, comprehensiveness, readability, conversational tone, and physician comfort level, respectively. There was an inverse relationship between years in training and output score (coeff = -0.03413, p = 0.0128); ICC measured 0.39 (p = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GPT-4 produced outputs that were accurate, understandable, and in a conversational tone. However, GPT-4 had a decreased capacity to produce a comprehensive output leading some physicians to be uncomfortable providing the output to patients. Practicing IRs should be aware of these limitations when counseling patients as ChatGPT-4 continues to develop into a clinically usable AI tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":52351,"journal":{"name":"CVIR Endovascular","volume":"7 1","pages":"83"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11607371/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CVIR Endovascular","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-024-00477-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The study aims to evaluate how current interventional radiologists view ChatGPT in the context of informed consent for interventional radiology (IR) procedures.

Methods: ChatGPT-4 was instructed to outline the risks, benefits, and alternatives for IR procedures. The outputs were reviewed by IR physicians to assess if outputs were 1) accurate, 2) comprehensive, 3) easy to understand, 4) written in a conversational tone, and 5) if they were comfortable providing the output to the patient. For each criterion, outputs were measured on a 5-point scale. Mean scores and percentage of physicians rating output as sufficient (4 or 5 on 5-point scale) were measured. A linear regression correlated mean rating with number of years in practice. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) measured agreement among physicians.

Results: The mean rating of the ChatGPT responses was 4.29, 3.85, 4.15, 4.24, 3.82 for accuracy, comprehensiveness, readability, conversational tone, and physician comfort level, respectively. Percentage of physicians rating outputs as sufficient was 84%, 71%, 85%, 85%, and 67% for accuracy, comprehensiveness, readability, conversational tone, and physician comfort level, respectively. There was an inverse relationship between years in training and output score (coeff = -0.03413, p = 0.0128); ICC measured 0.39 (p = 0.003).

Conclusions: GPT-4 produced outputs that were accurate, understandable, and in a conversational tone. However, GPT-4 had a decreased capacity to produce a comprehensive output leading some physicians to be uncomfortable providing the output to patients. Practicing IRs should be aware of these limitations when counseling patients as ChatGPT-4 continues to develop into a clinically usable AI tool.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CVIR Endovascular
CVIR Endovascular Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
×
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