Fadi Aljamaan, Mohamad-Hani Temsah, Ibraheem Altamimi, Ayman Al-Eyadhy, Amr Jamal, Khalid Alhasan, Tamer A Mesallam, Mohamed Farahat, Khalid H Malki
{"title":"医疗人工智能聊天机器人的参考幻觉评分：开发与可用性研究","authors":"Fadi Aljamaan, Mohamad-Hani Temsah, Ibraheem Altamimi, Ayman Al-Eyadhy, Amr Jamal, Khalid Alhasan, Tamer A Mesallam, Mohamed Farahat, Khalid H Malki","doi":"10.2196/54345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have recently gained use in medical practice by health care practitioners. Interestingly, the output of these AI chatbots was found to have varying degrees of hallucination in content and references. Such hallucinations generate doubts about their output and their implementation.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of our study was to propose a reference hallucination score (RHS) to evaluate the authenticity of AI chatbots' citations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six AI chatbots were challenged with the same 10 medical prompts, requesting 10 references per prompt. The RHS is composed of 6 bibliographic items and the reference's relevance to prompts' keywords. RHS was calculated for each reference, prompt, and type of prompt (basic vs complex). The average RHS was calculated for each AI chatbot and compared across the different types of prompts and AI chatbots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bard failed to generate any references. ChatGPT 3.5 and Bing generated the highest RHS (score=11), while Elicit and SciSpace generated the lowest RHS (score=1), and Perplexity generated a middle RHS (score=7). The highest degree of hallucination was observed for reference relevancy to the prompt keywords (308/500, 61.6%), while the lowest was for reference titles (169/500, 33.8%). ChatGPT and Bing had comparable RHS (β coefficient=-0.069; P=.32), while Perplexity had significantly lower RHS than ChatGPT (β coefficient=-0.345; P<.001). AI chatbots generally had significantly higher RHS when prompted with scenarios or complex format prompts (β coefficient=0.486; P<.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The variation in RHS underscores the necessity for a robust reference evaluation tool to improve the authenticity of AI chatbots. Further, the variations highlight the importance of verifying their output and citations. Elicit and SciSpace had negligible hallucination, while ChatGPT and Bing had critical hallucination levels. The proposed AI chatbots' RHS could contribute to ongoing efforts to enhance AI's general reliability in medical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":56334,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Informatics","volume":"12 ","pages":"e54345"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11325115/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reference Hallucination Score for Medical Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: Development and Usability Study.\",\"authors\":\"Fadi Aljamaan, Mohamad-Hani Temsah, Ibraheem Altamimi, Ayman Al-Eyadhy, Amr Jamal, Khalid Alhasan, Tamer A Mesallam, Mohamed Farahat, Khalid H Malki\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/54345\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have recently gained use in medical practice by health care practitioners. Interestingly, the output of these AI chatbots was found to have varying degrees of hallucination in content and references. Such hallucinations generate doubts about their output and their implementation.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of our study was to propose a reference hallucination score (RHS) to evaluate the authenticity of AI chatbots' citations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six AI chatbots were challenged with the same 10 medical prompts, requesting 10 references per prompt. The RHS is composed of 6 bibliographic items and the reference's relevance to prompts' keywords. RHS was calculated for each reference, prompt, and type of prompt (basic vs complex). The average RHS was calculated for each AI chatbot and compared across the different types of prompts and AI chatbots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bard failed to generate any references. ChatGPT 3.5 and Bing generated the highest RHS (score=11), while Elicit and SciSpace generated the lowest RHS (score=1), and Perplexity generated a middle RHS (score=7). The highest degree of hallucination was observed for reference relevancy to the prompt keywords (308/500, 61.6%), while the lowest was for reference titles (169/500, 33.8%). ChatGPT and Bing had comparable RHS (β coefficient=-0.069; P=.32), while Perplexity had significantly lower RHS than ChatGPT (β coefficient=-0.345; P<.001). AI chatbots generally had significantly higher RHS when prompted with scenarios or complex format prompts (β coefficient=0.486; P<.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The variation in RHS underscores the necessity for a robust reference evaluation tool to improve the authenticity of AI chatbots. Further, the variations highlight the importance of verifying their output and citations. Elicit and SciSpace had negligible hallucination, while ChatGPT and Bing had critical hallucination levels. The proposed AI chatbots' RHS could contribute to ongoing efforts to enhance AI's general reliability in medical research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Medical Informatics\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"e54345\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11325115/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Medical Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/54345\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/54345","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reference Hallucination Score for Medical Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: Development and Usability Study.
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have recently gained use in medical practice by health care practitioners. Interestingly, the output of these AI chatbots was found to have varying degrees of hallucination in content and references. Such hallucinations generate doubts about their output and their implementation.
Objective: The aim of our study was to propose a reference hallucination score (RHS) to evaluate the authenticity of AI chatbots' citations.
Methods: Six AI chatbots were challenged with the same 10 medical prompts, requesting 10 references per prompt. The RHS is composed of 6 bibliographic items and the reference's relevance to prompts' keywords. RHS was calculated for each reference, prompt, and type of prompt (basic vs complex). The average RHS was calculated for each AI chatbot and compared across the different types of prompts and AI chatbots.
Results: Bard failed to generate any references. ChatGPT 3.5 and Bing generated the highest RHS (score=11), while Elicit and SciSpace generated the lowest RHS (score=1), and Perplexity generated a middle RHS (score=7). The highest degree of hallucination was observed for reference relevancy to the prompt keywords (308/500, 61.6%), while the lowest was for reference titles (169/500, 33.8%). ChatGPT and Bing had comparable RHS (β coefficient=-0.069; P=.32), while Perplexity had significantly lower RHS than ChatGPT (β coefficient=-0.345; P<.001). AI chatbots generally had significantly higher RHS when prompted with scenarios or complex format prompts (β coefficient=0.486; P<.001).
Conclusions: The variation in RHS underscores the necessity for a robust reference evaluation tool to improve the authenticity of AI chatbots. Further, the variations highlight the importance of verifying their output and citations. Elicit and SciSpace had negligible hallucination, while ChatGPT and Bing had critical hallucination levels. The proposed AI chatbots' RHS could contribute to ongoing efforts to enhance AI's general reliability in medical research.
期刊介绍：
JMIR Medical Informatics (JMI, ISSN 2291-9694) is a top-rated, tier A journal which focuses on clinical informatics, big data in health and health care, decision support for health professionals, electronic health records, ehealth infrastructures and implementation. It has a focus on applied, translational research, with a broad readership including clinicians, CIOs, engineers, industry and health informatics professionals.
Published by JMIR Publications, publisher of the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), the leading eHealth/mHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175), JMIR Med Inform has a slightly different scope (emphasizing more on applications for clinicians and health professionals rather than consumers/citizens, which is the focus of JMIR), publishes even faster, and also allows papers which are more technical or more formative than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
