AI-assisted decision-making in mild traumatic brain injury.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Yavuz Yigit, Mahmut Firat Kaynak, Baha Alkahlout, Shabbir Ahmed, Serkan Günay, Asim Enes Ozbek
{"title":"AI-assisted decision-making in mild traumatic brain injury.","authors":"Yavuz Yigit, Mahmut Firat Kaynak, Baha Alkahlout, Shabbir Ahmed, Serkan Günay, Asim Enes Ozbek","doi":"10.1186/s12873-024-01159-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study evaluates the potential use of ChatGPT in aiding clinical decision-making for patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) by assessing the quality of responses it generates for clinical care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventeen mild TBI case scenarios were selected from PubMed Central, and each case was analyzed by GPT-4 (March 21, 2024, version) between April 11 and April 20, 2024. Responses were evaluated by four emergency medicine specialists, who rated the ease of understanding, scientific adequacy, and satisfaction with each response using a 7-point Likert scale. Evaluators were also asked to identify critical errors, defined as mistakes in clinical care or interpretation that could lead to morbidity or mortality. The readability of GPT-4's responses was also assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in the ease of understanding between responses with and without critical errors (p = 0.133). However, responses with critical errors significantly reduced satisfaction and scientific adequacy (p < 0.001). GPT-4 responses were significantly more difficult to read than the case descriptions (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPT-4 demonstrates potential utility in clinical decision-making for mild TBI management, offering scientifically appropriate and comprehensible responses. However, critical errors and readability issues limit its immediate implementation in emergency settings without oversight by experienced medical professionals.</p>","PeriodicalId":9002,"journal":{"name":"BMC Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 1","pages":"43"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11905459/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-01159-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluates the potential use of ChatGPT in aiding clinical decision-making for patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) by assessing the quality of responses it generates for clinical care.

Methods: Seventeen mild TBI case scenarios were selected from PubMed Central, and each case was analyzed by GPT-4 (March 21, 2024, version) between April 11 and April 20, 2024. Responses were evaluated by four emergency medicine specialists, who rated the ease of understanding, scientific adequacy, and satisfaction with each response using a 7-point Likert scale. Evaluators were also asked to identify critical errors, defined as mistakes in clinical care or interpretation that could lead to morbidity or mortality. The readability of GPT-4's responses was also assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tools.

Results: There was no significant difference in the ease of understanding between responses with and without critical errors (p = 0.133). However, responses with critical errors significantly reduced satisfaction and scientific adequacy (p < 0.001). GPT-4 responses were significantly more difficult to read than the case descriptions (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: GPT-4 demonstrates potential utility in clinical decision-making for mild TBI management, offering scientifically appropriate and comprehensible responses. However, critical errors and readability issues limit its immediate implementation in emergency settings without oversight by experienced medical professionals.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Emergency Medicine
BMC Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Emergency Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all urgent and emergency aspects of medicine, in both practice and basic research. In addition, the journal covers aspects of disaster medicine and medicine in special locations, such as conflict areas and military medicine, together with articles concerning healthcare services in the emergency departments.
×
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