关于临床药学的 ChatGPT 和事实知识问题:通信。

Hinpetch Daungsupawong PhD, Viroj Wiwanitkit MD
{"title":"关于临床药学的 ChatGPT 和事实知识问题:通信。","authors":"Hinpetch Daungsupawong PhD,&nbsp;Viroj Wiwanitkit MD","doi":"10.1002/jcph.2479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Dear Editor,</p><p>The article “Performance of ChatGPT on Factual Knowledge Questions Regarding Clinical Pharmacy” is the topic of present discussion in this letter.<span><sup>1</sup></span> In this work, the researchers evaluated ChatGPT's ability to respond to factual knowledge inquiries regarding clinical pharmacy using a language model trained on medical literature. ChatGPT was asked 264 questions in all, and its answers were assessed for accuracy, consistency, substantiation quality, and repeatability. According to the findings, ChatGPT answered 79% of the questions correctly, outperforming pharmacists' accuracy rate of 66%. The agreement between ChatGPT's answers and the right answers was 95%. The fact that ChatGPT's performance was assessed using only 264 questions is one of the study's weaknesses. This might not adequately convey the limitations and strengths of the approach for a wider range of clinical pharmacy subjects. Furthermore, the study only included factual knowledge questions, which might not accurately capture the subtleties and complexities that are frequently present in clinical practice. Additionally, there might have been biases in the questions chosen or the standards of evaluation that the researchers employed. The lack of variety in the questions that are sent to ChatGPT and the possibility of irregularities in the independent pharmacists' evaluation of the substantiation's quality are two specific methodological shortcomings. Furthermore, when applying clinical pharmacy knowledge to real-world circumstances, ChatGPT's interpretative or reasoning abilities were not examined in this study. These elements are necessary for a thorough assessment of ChatGPT's usefulness in clinical settings. Extending the dataset of questions to include a greater variety of clinical pharmacy issues, including more intricate and nuanced scenarios, may be one of the research's future approaches. Furthermore, more research into ChatGPT's capacity to offer justifications and explanations for its conclusions might improve the tool's suitability for helping pharmacists make decisions. Studies with a longitudinal design could investigate ChatGPT's long-term effectiveness and evaluate how it affects clinical outcomes in pharmacy practice. Continuous upgrades and enhancements to ChatGPT might increase its functionality and solidify its position as a trustworthy resource for pharmacists as the technology advances.</p><p>Hinpetch Daungsupawong: 50% ideas; writing; analyzing; approval. Viroj Wiwanitkit: 50 % ideas; supervision; approval.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":22751,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jcph.2479","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT and Factual Knowledge Questions Regarding Clinical Pharmacy: Correspondence\",\"authors\":\"Hinpetch Daungsupawong PhD,&nbsp;Viroj Wiwanitkit MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jcph.2479\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Dear Editor,</p><p>The article “Performance of ChatGPT on Factual Knowledge Questions Regarding Clinical Pharmacy” is the topic of present discussion in this letter.<span><sup>1</sup></span> In this work, the researchers evaluated ChatGPT's ability to respond to factual knowledge inquiries regarding clinical pharmacy using a language model trained on medical literature. ChatGPT was asked 264 questions in all, and its answers were assessed for accuracy, consistency, substantiation quality, and repeatability. According to the findings, ChatGPT answered 79% of the questions correctly, outperforming pharmacists' accuracy rate of 66%. The agreement between ChatGPT's answers and the right answers was 95%. The fact that ChatGPT's performance was assessed using only 264 questions is one of the study's weaknesses. This might not adequately convey the limitations and strengths of the approach for a wider range of clinical pharmacy subjects. Furthermore, the study only included factual knowledge questions, which might not accurately capture the subtleties and complexities that are frequently present in clinical practice. Additionally, there might have been biases in the questions chosen or the standards of evaluation that the researchers employed. The lack of variety in the questions that are sent to ChatGPT and the possibility of irregularities in the independent pharmacists' evaluation of the substantiation's quality are two specific methodological shortcomings. Furthermore, when applying clinical pharmacy knowledge to real-world circumstances, ChatGPT's interpretative or reasoning abilities were not examined in this study. These elements are necessary for a thorough assessment of ChatGPT's usefulness in clinical settings. Extending the dataset of questions to include a greater variety of clinical pharmacy issues, including more intricate and nuanced scenarios, may be one of the research's future approaches. Furthermore, more research into ChatGPT's capacity to offer justifications and explanations for its conclusions might improve the tool's suitability for helping pharmacists make decisions. Studies with a longitudinal design could investigate ChatGPT's long-term effectiveness and evaluate how it affects clinical outcomes in pharmacy practice. Continuous upgrades and enhancements to ChatGPT might increase its functionality and solidify its position as a trustworthy resource for pharmacists as the technology advances.</p><p>Hinpetch Daungsupawong: 50% ideas; writing; analyzing; approval. Viroj Wiwanitkit: 50 % ideas; supervision; approval.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22751,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jcph.2479\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcph.2479\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcph.2479","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

亲爱的编辑,"ChatGPT 在有关临床药学的事实知识问题上的表现 "一文是本信目前讨论的主题。1 在这项工作中,研究人员评估了 ChatGPT 使用经过医学文献训练的语言模型回答有关临床药学的事实知识问题的能力。总共向 ChatGPT 提出了 264 个问题,并对其回答的准确性、一致性、证实质量和可重复性进行了评估。结果显示,ChatGPT 回答了 79% 的问题,正确率超过了药剂师的 66%。ChatGPT 的答案与正确答案的一致率为 95%。仅使用 264 个问题对 ChatGPT 的性能进行评估是本研究的不足之处之一。这可能无法充分反映该方法在更广泛的临床药学科目中的局限性和优势。此外,该研究只包括事实性知识问题,可能无法准确反映临床实践中经常出现的微妙性和复杂性。此外,所选问题或研究人员采用的评价标准可能存在偏差。发送给 ChatGPT 的问题缺乏多样性,以及独立药剂师对证实质量的评估可能不规范,是方法论上的两个具体缺陷。此外,在将临床药学知识应用于实际情况时,本研究并未考察 ChatGPT 的解释或推理能力。要全面评估 ChatGPT 在临床环境中的实用性,这些要素是必不可少的。扩展问题数据集以包含更多临床药学问题,包括更复杂、更微妙的情景,可能是研究的未来方向之一。此外,对 ChatGPT 为其结论提供理由和解释的能力进行更多研究,可能会提高该工具在帮助药剂师做出决策方面的适用性。采用纵向设计的研究可以调查 ChatGPT 的长期有效性,并评估它如何影响药学实践中的临床结果。随着技术的进步,对 ChatGPT 的不断升级和改进可能会增加其功能,并巩固其作为药剂师值得信赖的资源的地位。Viroj Wiwanitkit:作者声明无利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ChatGPT and Factual Knowledge Questions Regarding Clinical Pharmacy: Correspondence

Dear Editor,

The article “Performance of ChatGPT on Factual Knowledge Questions Regarding Clinical Pharmacy” is the topic of present discussion in this letter.1 In this work, the researchers evaluated ChatGPT's ability to respond to factual knowledge inquiries regarding clinical pharmacy using a language model trained on medical literature. ChatGPT was asked 264 questions in all, and its answers were assessed for accuracy, consistency, substantiation quality, and repeatability. According to the findings, ChatGPT answered 79% of the questions correctly, outperforming pharmacists' accuracy rate of 66%. The agreement between ChatGPT's answers and the right answers was 95%. The fact that ChatGPT's performance was assessed using only 264 questions is one of the study's weaknesses. This might not adequately convey the limitations and strengths of the approach for a wider range of clinical pharmacy subjects. Furthermore, the study only included factual knowledge questions, which might not accurately capture the subtleties and complexities that are frequently present in clinical practice. Additionally, there might have been biases in the questions chosen or the standards of evaluation that the researchers employed. The lack of variety in the questions that are sent to ChatGPT and the possibility of irregularities in the independent pharmacists' evaluation of the substantiation's quality are two specific methodological shortcomings. Furthermore, when applying clinical pharmacy knowledge to real-world circumstances, ChatGPT's interpretative or reasoning abilities were not examined in this study. These elements are necessary for a thorough assessment of ChatGPT's usefulness in clinical settings. Extending the dataset of questions to include a greater variety of clinical pharmacy issues, including more intricate and nuanced scenarios, may be one of the research's future approaches. Furthermore, more research into ChatGPT's capacity to offer justifications and explanations for its conclusions might improve the tool's suitability for helping pharmacists make decisions. Studies with a longitudinal design could investigate ChatGPT's long-term effectiveness and evaluate how it affects clinical outcomes in pharmacy practice. Continuous upgrades and enhancements to ChatGPT might increase its functionality and solidify its position as a trustworthy resource for pharmacists as the technology advances.

Hinpetch Daungsupawong: 50% ideas; writing; analyzing; approval. Viroj Wiwanitkit: 50 % ideas; supervision; approval.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信