将 ChatGPT 作为药学实践中回答临床问题的工具进行评估。

IF 1 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Journal of pharmacy practice Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-22 DOI:10.1177/08971900241256731
Faria Munir, Anna Gehres, David Wai, Leah Song
{"title":"将 ChatGPT 作为药学实践中回答临床问题的工具进行评估。","authors":"Faria Munir, Anna Gehres, David Wai, Leah Song","doi":"10.1177/08971900241256731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> In the healthcare field, there has been a growing interest in using artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools to assist healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, in their daily tasks. <b>Objectives:</b> To provide commentary and insight into the potential for generative AI language models such as ChatGPT as a tool for answering practice-based, clinical questions and the challenges that need to be addressed before implementation in pharmacy practice settings. <b>Methods:</b> To assess ChatGPT, pharmacy-based questions were prompted to ChatGPT (Version 3.5; free version) and responses were recorded. Question types included 6 drug information questions, 6 enhanced prompt drug information questions, 5 patient case questions, 5 calculations questions, and 10 drug knowledge questions (e.g., top 200 drugs). After all responses were collected, ChatGPT responses were assessed for appropriateness. <b>Results:</b> ChatGPT responses were generated from 32 questions in 5 categories and evaluated on a total of 44 possible points. Among all ChatGPT responses and categories, the overall score was 21 of 44 points (47.73%). ChatGPT scored higher in pharmacy calculation (100%), drug information (83%), and top 200 drugs (80%) categories and lower in drug information enhanced prompt (33%) and patient case (20%) categories. <b>Conclusion:</b> This study suggests that ChatGPT has limited success as a tool to answer pharmacy-based questions. ChatGPT scored higher in calculation and multiple-choice questions but scored lower in drug information and patient case questions, generating misleading or fictional answers and citations.</p>","PeriodicalId":16818,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pharmacy practice","volume":" ","pages":"1303-1310"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of ChatGPT as a Tool for Answering Clinical Questions in Pharmacy Practice.\",\"authors\":\"Faria Munir, Anna Gehres, David Wai, Leah Song\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08971900241256731\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> In the healthcare field, there has been a growing interest in using artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools to assist healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, in their daily tasks. <b>Objectives:</b> To provide commentary and insight into the potential for generative AI language models such as ChatGPT as a tool for answering practice-based, clinical questions and the challenges that need to be addressed before implementation in pharmacy practice settings. <b>Methods:</b> To assess ChatGPT, pharmacy-based questions were prompted to ChatGPT (Version 3.5; free version) and responses were recorded. Question types included 6 drug information questions, 6 enhanced prompt drug information questions, 5 patient case questions, 5 calculations questions, and 10 drug knowledge questions (e.g., top 200 drugs). After all responses were collected, ChatGPT responses were assessed for appropriateness. <b>Results:</b> ChatGPT responses were generated from 32 questions in 5 categories and evaluated on a total of 44 possible points. Among all ChatGPT responses and categories, the overall score was 21 of 44 points (47.73%). ChatGPT scored higher in pharmacy calculation (100%), drug information (83%), and top 200 drugs (80%) categories and lower in drug information enhanced prompt (33%) and patient case (20%) categories. <b>Conclusion:</b> This study suggests that ChatGPT has limited success as a tool to answer pharmacy-based questions. ChatGPT scored higher in calculation and multiple-choice questions but scored lower in drug information and patient case questions, generating misleading or fictional answers and citations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of pharmacy practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1303-1310\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of pharmacy practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08971900241256731\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pharmacy practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08971900241256731","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在医疗保健领域,人们对使用人工智能(AI)驱动的工具来协助包括药剂师在内的医疗保健专业人员完成日常工作越来越感兴趣。研究目的对生成式人工智能语言模型(如 ChatGPT)作为回答基于实践的临床问题的工具的潜力以及在药学实践环境中实施前需要应对的挑战进行评论和深入探讨。方法:为了评估 ChatGPT,我们向 ChatGPT(3.5 版;免费版)提示了基于药学的问题并记录了回复。问题类型包括 6 个药物信息问题、6 个增强型药物信息提示问题、5 个患者案例问题、5 个计算问题和 10 个药物知识问题(如前 200 种药物)。收集完所有回答后,对 ChatGPT 回答的适当性进行评估。结果:从 5 个类别的 32 个问题中生成了 ChatGPT 回答,并对总共 44 个可能的点数进行了评估。在所有 ChatGPT 回答和类别中,总分为 44 分中的 21 分(47.73%)。ChatGPT 在药房计算(100%)、药品信息(83%)和前 200 种药品(80%)类别中得分较高,而在药品信息增强提示(33%)和患者病例(20%)类别中得分较低。结论本研究表明,ChatGPT 作为回答药学问题的工具取得的成功有限。ChatGPT 在计算题和多项选择题中得分较高,但在药物信息题和病例题中得分较低,会产生误导或虚构的答案和引文。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of ChatGPT as a Tool for Answering Clinical Questions in Pharmacy Practice.

Background: In the healthcare field, there has been a growing interest in using artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools to assist healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, in their daily tasks. Objectives: To provide commentary and insight into the potential for generative AI language models such as ChatGPT as a tool for answering practice-based, clinical questions and the challenges that need to be addressed before implementation in pharmacy practice settings. Methods: To assess ChatGPT, pharmacy-based questions were prompted to ChatGPT (Version 3.5; free version) and responses were recorded. Question types included 6 drug information questions, 6 enhanced prompt drug information questions, 5 patient case questions, 5 calculations questions, and 10 drug knowledge questions (e.g., top 200 drugs). After all responses were collected, ChatGPT responses were assessed for appropriateness. Results: ChatGPT responses were generated from 32 questions in 5 categories and evaluated on a total of 44 possible points. Among all ChatGPT responses and categories, the overall score was 21 of 44 points (47.73%). ChatGPT scored higher in pharmacy calculation (100%), drug information (83%), and top 200 drugs (80%) categories and lower in drug information enhanced prompt (33%) and patient case (20%) categories. Conclusion: This study suggests that ChatGPT has limited success as a tool to answer pharmacy-based questions. ChatGPT scored higher in calculation and multiple-choice questions but scored lower in drug information and patient case questions, generating misleading or fictional answers and citations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of pharmacy practice
Journal of pharmacy practice PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pharmacy Practice offers the practicing pharmacist topical, important, and useful information to support pharmacy practice and pharmaceutical care and expand the pharmacist"s professional horizons. The journal is presented in a single-topic, scholarly review format. Guest editors are selected for expertise in the subject area, who then recruit contributors from that practice or topic area.
×
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