人工智能医生?一项试点研究,考察人工智能对老年病患者常见问题的反应

IF 3 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Ian Moore, Christopher Magnante, Ellie Embry, Jennifer Mathis, Scott Mooney, S. Haj-Hassan, Maria Cottingham, Prasad R. Padala
{"title":"人工智能医生?一项试点研究,考察人工智能对老年病患者常见问题的反应","authors":"Ian Moore, Christopher Magnante, Ellie Embry, Jennifer Mathis, Scott Mooney, S. Haj-Hassan, Maria Cottingham, Prasad R. Padala","doi":"10.3389/frai.2024.1438012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AI technologies have the potential to transform patient care. AI has been used to aid in differential diagnosis and treatment planning for psychiatric disorders, administer therapeutic protocols, assist with interpretation of cognitive testing, and patient treatment planning. Despite advancements, AI has notable limitations and remains understudied and further research on its strengths and limitations in patient care is required. This study explored the responses of AI (Chat-GPT 3.5) and trained clinicians to commonly asked patient questions.Three clinicians and AI provided responses to five dementia/geriatric healthcare-related questions. Responses were analyzed by a fourth, blinded clinician for clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, and ease of understanding and to determine which response was AI generated.AI responses were rated highest in ease of understanding and depth across all responses and tied for first for clarity, accuracy, and relevance. The rating for AI generated responses was 4.6/5 (SD = 0.26); the clinician s' responses were 4.3 (SD = 0.67), 4.2 (SD = 0.52), and 3.9 (SD = 0.59), respectively. The AI generated answers were identified in 4/5 instances.AI responses were rated more highly and consistently on each question individually and overall than clinician answers demonstrating that AI could produce good responses to potential patient questions. However, AI responses were easily distinguishable from those of clinicians. Although AI has the potential to positively impact healthcare, concerns are raised regarding difficulties discerning AI from human generated material, the increased potential for proliferation of misinformation, data security concerns, and more.","PeriodicalId":33315,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Doctor AI? A pilot study examining responses of artificial intelligence to common questions asked by geriatric patients\",\"authors\":\"Ian Moore, Christopher Magnante, Ellie Embry, Jennifer Mathis, Scott Mooney, S. Haj-Hassan, Maria Cottingham, Prasad R. Padala\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frai.2024.1438012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AI technologies have the potential to transform patient care. AI has been used to aid in differential diagnosis and treatment planning for psychiatric disorders, administer therapeutic protocols, assist with interpretation of cognitive testing, and patient treatment planning. Despite advancements, AI has notable limitations and remains understudied and further research on its strengths and limitations in patient care is required. This study explored the responses of AI (Chat-GPT 3.5) and trained clinicians to commonly asked patient questions.Three clinicians and AI provided responses to five dementia/geriatric healthcare-related questions. Responses were analyzed by a fourth, blinded clinician for clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, and ease of understanding and to determine which response was AI generated.AI responses were rated highest in ease of understanding and depth across all responses and tied for first for clarity, accuracy, and relevance. The rating for AI generated responses was 4.6/5 (SD = 0.26); the clinician s' responses were 4.3 (SD = 0.67), 4.2 (SD = 0.52), and 3.9 (SD = 0.59), respectively. The AI generated answers were identified in 4/5 instances.AI responses were rated more highly and consistently on each question individually and overall than clinician answers demonstrating that AI could produce good responses to potential patient questions. However, AI responses were easily distinguishable from those of clinicians. Although AI has the potential to positively impact healthcare, concerns are raised regarding difficulties discerning AI from human generated material, the increased potential for proliferation of misinformation, data security concerns, and more.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1438012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1438012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能技术具有改变病人护理的潜力。人工智能已被用于协助精神疾病的鉴别诊断和治疗计划、管理治疗方案、协助解释认知测试和病人治疗计划。尽管取得了进步,但人工智能仍有明显的局限性,而且研究仍然不足,需要进一步研究其在患者护理方面的优势和局限性。本研究探讨了人工智能(Chat-GPT 3.5)和训练有素的临床医生对患者常见问题的回答。第三位临床医生和人工智能回答了五个与痴呆症/老年病医疗相关的问题。第四位临床医生对回答进行了分析,分析内容包括清晰度、准确性、相关性、深度和易懂程度,并确定哪个回答是人工智能生成的。在所有回答中,人工智能回答的易懂程度和深度最高,在清晰度、准确性和相关性方面并列第一。人工智能生成答案的评分为 4.6/5(标准差 = 0.26);临床医生的答案分别为 4.3(标准差 = 0.67)、4.2(标准差 = 0.52)和 3.9(标准差 = 0.59)。与临床医生的回答相比,人工智能回答在每个问题上的评分都更高、更一致,这表明人工智能可以对患者可能提出的问题做出很好的回答。不过,人工智能的回答很容易与临床医生的回答区分开来。虽然人工智能有可能对医疗保健产生积极影响,但人们也提出了一些担忧,如人工智能与人类生成的材料难以区分、错误信息扩散的可能性增加、数据安全问题等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Doctor AI? A pilot study examining responses of artificial intelligence to common questions asked by geriatric patients
AI technologies have the potential to transform patient care. AI has been used to aid in differential diagnosis and treatment planning for psychiatric disorders, administer therapeutic protocols, assist with interpretation of cognitive testing, and patient treatment planning. Despite advancements, AI has notable limitations and remains understudied and further research on its strengths and limitations in patient care is required. This study explored the responses of AI (Chat-GPT 3.5) and trained clinicians to commonly asked patient questions.Three clinicians and AI provided responses to five dementia/geriatric healthcare-related questions. Responses were analyzed by a fourth, blinded clinician for clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, and ease of understanding and to determine which response was AI generated.AI responses were rated highest in ease of understanding and depth across all responses and tied for first for clarity, accuracy, and relevance. The rating for AI generated responses was 4.6/5 (SD = 0.26); the clinician s' responses were 4.3 (SD = 0.67), 4.2 (SD = 0.52), and 3.9 (SD = 0.59), respectively. The AI generated answers were identified in 4/5 instances.AI responses were rated more highly and consistently on each question individually and overall than clinician answers demonstrating that AI could produce good responses to potential patient questions. However, AI responses were easily distinguishable from those of clinicians. Although AI has the potential to positively impact healthcare, concerns are raised regarding difficulties discerning AI from human generated material, the increased potential for proliferation of misinformation, data security concerns, and more.
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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.50%
发文量
272
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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