Application of ChatGPT as a content generation tool in continuing medical education: acne as a test topic.

IF 2.3 Q2 DERMATOLOGY
Luigi Naldi, Vincenzo Bettoli, Eugenio Santoro, Maria Rosa Valetto, Anna Bolzon, Fortunato Cassalia, Simone Cazzaniga, Sergio Cima, Andrea Danese, Silvia Emendi, Monica Ponzano, Nicoletta Scarpa, Pietro Dri
{"title":"Application of ChatGPT as a content generation tool in continuing medical education: acne as a test topic.","authors":"Luigi Naldi, Vincenzo Bettoli, Eugenio Santoro, Maria Rosa Valetto, Anna Bolzon, Fortunato Cassalia, Simone Cazzaniga, Sergio Cima, Andrea Danese, Silvia Emendi, Monica Ponzano, Nicoletta Scarpa, Pietro Dri","doi":"10.4081/dr.2024.10138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The large language model (LLM) ChatGPT can answer open-ended and complex questions, but its accuracy in providing reliable medical information requires a careful assessment. As part of the AICHECK (Artificial Intelligence for CME Health E-learning Contents and Knowledge) Study, aimed at evaluating the potential of ChatGPT in continuous medical education (CME), we compared ChatGPT-generated educational contents to the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on acne vulgaris. ChatGPT version 4 was exposed to a 23-item questionnaire developed by an experienced dermatologist. A panel of five dermatologists rated the answers positively in terms of \"quality\" (87.8%), \"readability\" (94.8%), \"accuracy\" (75.7%), \"thoroughness\" (85.2%), and \"consistency\" with guidelines (76.8%). The references provided by ChatGPT obtained positive ratings for \"pertinence\" (94.6%), \"relevance\" (91.2%), and \"update\" (62.3%). The internal reproducibility was adequate both for answers (93.5%) and references (67.4%). Answers related to issues of uncertainty and/or controversy in the scientific community scored the lowest. This study underscores the need to develop rigorous evaluation criteria for AI-generated medical content and for expert oversight to ensure accuracy and guideline adherence.</p>","PeriodicalId":11049,"journal":{"name":"Dermatology Reports","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dermatology Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/dr.2024.10138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The large language model (LLM) ChatGPT can answer open-ended and complex questions, but its accuracy in providing reliable medical information requires a careful assessment. As part of the AICHECK (Artificial Intelligence for CME Health E-learning Contents and Knowledge) Study, aimed at evaluating the potential of ChatGPT in continuous medical education (CME), we compared ChatGPT-generated educational contents to the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on acne vulgaris. ChatGPT version 4 was exposed to a 23-item questionnaire developed by an experienced dermatologist. A panel of five dermatologists rated the answers positively in terms of "quality" (87.8%), "readability" (94.8%), "accuracy" (75.7%), "thoroughness" (85.2%), and "consistency" with guidelines (76.8%). The references provided by ChatGPT obtained positive ratings for "pertinence" (94.6%), "relevance" (91.2%), and "update" (62.3%). The internal reproducibility was adequate both for answers (93.5%) and references (67.4%). Answers related to issues of uncertainty and/or controversy in the scientific community scored the lowest. This study underscores the need to develop rigorous evaluation criteria for AI-generated medical content and for expert oversight to ensure accuracy and guideline adherence.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dermatology Reports
Dermatology Reports DERMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
74
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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