Can artificial intelligence diagnose seizures based on patients' descriptions? A study of GPT-4.

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Epilepsia Pub Date : 2025-02-27 DOI:10.1111/epi.18322
Joseph Ford, Nathan Pevy, Richard Grunewald, Stephen Howell, Markus Reuber
{"title":"Can artificial intelligence diagnose seizures based on patients' descriptions? A study of GPT-4.","authors":"Joseph Ford, Nathan Pevy, Richard Grunewald, Stephen Howell, Markus Reuber","doi":"10.1111/epi.18322","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Generalist large language models (LLMs) have shown diagnostic potential in various medical contexts but have not been explored extensively in relation to epilepsy. This paper aims to test the performance of an LLM (OpenAI's GPT-4) on the differential diagnosis of epileptic and functional/dissociative seizures (FDS) based on patients' descriptions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>GPT-4 was asked to diagnose 41 cases of epilepsy (n = 16) or FDS (n = 25) based on transcripts of patients describing their symptoms (median word count = 399). It was first asked to perform this task without additional training examples (zero-shot) before being asked to perform it having been given one, two, and three examples of each condition (one-, two, and three-shot). As a benchmark, three experienced neurologists performed this task without access to any additional clinical or demographic information (e.g., age, gender, socioeconomic status).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the zero-shot condition, GPT-4's average balanced accuracy was 57% (κ = .15). Balanced accuracy improved in the one-shot condition (64%, κ = .27), but did not improve any further in the two-shot (62%, κ = .24) and three-shot (62%, κ = .23) conditions. Performance in all four conditions was worse than the mean balanced accuracy of the experienced neurologists (71%, κ = .42). However, in the subset of 18 cases that all three neurologists had \"diagnosed\" correctly (median word count = 684), GPT-4's balanced accuracy was 81% (κ = .66).</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>Although its \"raw\" performance was poor, GPT-4 showed noticeable improvement having been given just one example of a patient describing epilepsy and FDS. Giving two and three examples did not further improve performance, but the finding that GPT-4 did much better in those cases correctly diagnosed by all three neurologists suggests that providing more extensive clinical data and more elaborate approaches (e.g., more refined prompt engineering, fine-tuning, or retrieval augmented generation) could unlock the full diagnostic potential of LLMs.</p>","PeriodicalId":11768,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.18322","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Generalist large language models (LLMs) have shown diagnostic potential in various medical contexts but have not been explored extensively in relation to epilepsy. This paper aims to test the performance of an LLM (OpenAI's GPT-4) on the differential diagnosis of epileptic and functional/dissociative seizures (FDS) based on patients' descriptions.

Methods: GPT-4 was asked to diagnose 41 cases of epilepsy (n = 16) or FDS (n = 25) based on transcripts of patients describing their symptoms (median word count = 399). It was first asked to perform this task without additional training examples (zero-shot) before being asked to perform it having been given one, two, and three examples of each condition (one-, two, and three-shot). As a benchmark, three experienced neurologists performed this task without access to any additional clinical or demographic information (e.g., age, gender, socioeconomic status).

Results: In the zero-shot condition, GPT-4's average balanced accuracy was 57% (κ = .15). Balanced accuracy improved in the one-shot condition (64%, κ = .27), but did not improve any further in the two-shot (62%, κ = .24) and three-shot (62%, κ = .23) conditions. Performance in all four conditions was worse than the mean balanced accuracy of the experienced neurologists (71%, κ = .42). However, in the subset of 18 cases that all three neurologists had "diagnosed" correctly (median word count = 684), GPT-4's balanced accuracy was 81% (κ = .66).

Significance: Although its "raw" performance was poor, GPT-4 showed noticeable improvement having been given just one example of a patient describing epilepsy and FDS. Giving two and three examples did not further improve performance, but the finding that GPT-4 did much better in those cases correctly diagnosed by all three neurologists suggests that providing more extensive clinical data and more elaborate approaches (e.g., more refined prompt engineering, fine-tuning, or retrieval augmented generation) could unlock the full diagnostic potential of LLMs.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epilepsia
Epilepsia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Epilepsia is the leading, authoritative source for innovative clinical and basic science research for all aspects of epilepsy and seizures. In addition, Epilepsia publishes critical reviews, opinion pieces, and guidelines that foster understanding and aim to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with seizures and epilepsy.
×
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