Public Versus Academic Discourse on ChatGPT in Health Care: Mixed Methods Study.

IF 3.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JMIR infodemiology Pub Date : 2025-06-23 DOI:10.2196/64509
Patrick Baxter, Meng-Hao Li, Jiaxin Wei, Naoru Koizumi
{"title":"Public Versus Academic Discourse on ChatGPT in Health Care: Mixed Methods Study.","authors":"Patrick Baxter, Meng-Hao Li, Jiaxin Wei, Naoru Koizumi","doi":"10.2196/64509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rapid emergence of artificial intelligence-based large language models (LLMs) in 2022 has initiated extensive discussions within the academic community. While proponents highlight LLMs' potential to improve writing and analytical tasks, critics caution against the ethical and cultural implications of widespread reliance on these models. Existing literature has explored various aspects of LLMs, including their integration, performance, and utility, yet there is a gap in understanding the nature of these discussions and how public perception contrasts with expert opinion in the field of public health.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study sought to explore how the general public's views and sentiments regarding LLMs, using OpenAI's ChatGPT as an example, differ from those of academic researchers and experts in the field, with the goal of gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the future role of LLMs in health care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a hybrid sentiment analysis approach, integrating the Syuzhet package in R (R Core Team) with GPT-3.5, achieving an 84% accuracy rate in sentiment classification. Also, structural topic modeling was applied to identify and analyze 8 key discussion topics, capturing both optimistic and critical perspectives on LLMs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings revealed a predominantly positive sentiment toward LLM integration in health care, particularly in areas such as patient care and clinical decision-making. However, concerns were raised regarding their suitability for mental health support and patient communication, highlighting potential limitations and ethical challenges.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study underscores the transformative potential of LLMs in public health while emphasizing the need to address ethical and practical concerns. By comparing public discourse with academic perspectives, our findings contribute to the ongoing scholarly debate on the opportunities and risks associated with LLM adoption in health care.</p>","PeriodicalId":73554,"journal":{"name":"JMIR infodemiology","volume":"5 ","pages":"e64509"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR infodemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/64509","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The rapid emergence of artificial intelligence-based large language models (LLMs) in 2022 has initiated extensive discussions within the academic community. While proponents highlight LLMs' potential to improve writing and analytical tasks, critics caution against the ethical and cultural implications of widespread reliance on these models. Existing literature has explored various aspects of LLMs, including their integration, performance, and utility, yet there is a gap in understanding the nature of these discussions and how public perception contrasts with expert opinion in the field of public health.

Objective: This study sought to explore how the general public's views and sentiments regarding LLMs, using OpenAI's ChatGPT as an example, differ from those of academic researchers and experts in the field, with the goal of gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the future role of LLMs in health care.

Methods: We used a hybrid sentiment analysis approach, integrating the Syuzhet package in R (R Core Team) with GPT-3.5, achieving an 84% accuracy rate in sentiment classification. Also, structural topic modeling was applied to identify and analyze 8 key discussion topics, capturing both optimistic and critical perspectives on LLMs.

Results: Findings revealed a predominantly positive sentiment toward LLM integration in health care, particularly in areas such as patient care and clinical decision-making. However, concerns were raised regarding their suitability for mental health support and patient communication, highlighting potential limitations and ethical challenges.

Conclusions: This study underscores the transformative potential of LLMs in public health while emphasizing the need to address ethical and practical concerns. By comparing public discourse with academic perspectives, our findings contribute to the ongoing scholarly debate on the opportunities and risks associated with LLM adoption in health care.

卫生保健中ChatGPT的公共话语与学术话语:混合方法研究
背景:2022年,基于人工智能的大型语言模型(llm)迅速崛起,在学术界引发了广泛的讨论。虽然支持者强调法学硕士在提高写作和分析任务方面的潜力,但批评者警告说,广泛依赖这些模式可能会带来伦理和文化上的影响。现有文献已经探讨了法学硕士的各个方面,包括它们的整合、性能和效用,但在理解这些讨论的性质以及公众看法与公共卫生领域专家意见的对比方面存在差距。目的:本研究以OpenAI的ChatGPT为例,探讨公众对法学硕士的看法和看法与该领域的学术研究人员和专家的看法和看法的不同,目的是更全面地了解法学硕士在医疗保健领域的未来作用。方法:采用混合情感分析方法,将R中的Syuzhet软件包(R Core Team)与GPT-3.5相结合,实现了84%的情感分类准确率。此外,结构性主题建模应用于识别和分析8个关键讨论主题,捕捉对法学硕士的乐观和批评观点。结果:调查结果显示,主要是积极的情绪对法学硕士整合在医疗保健,特别是在领域,如病人护理和临床决策。然而,有人对其是否适合心理健康支持和病人沟通表示关切,强调了潜在的局限性和伦理挑战。结论:这项研究强调了法学硕士在公共卫生领域的变革潜力,同时强调了解决伦理和实际问题的必要性。通过比较公共话语与学术观点,我们的研究结果有助于正在进行的关于在医疗保健中采用法学硕士相关的机会和风险的学术辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信