比较 ChatGPT 和单个麻醉医师对常见患者问题的回答:麻醉医师小组的探索性横断面调查。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frederick H Kuo, Jamie L Fierstein, Brant H Tudor, Geoffrey M Gray, Luis M Ahumada, Scott C Watkins, Mohamed A Rehman
{"title":"比较 ChatGPT 和单个麻醉医师对常见患者问题的回答:麻醉医师小组的探索性横断面调查。","authors":"Frederick H Kuo, Jamie L Fierstein, Brant H Tudor, Geoffrey M Gray, Luis M Ahumada, Scott C Watkins, Mohamed A Rehman","doi":"10.1007/s10916-024-02100-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Increased patient access to electronic medical records and resources has resulted in higher volumes of health-related questions posed to clinical staff, while physicians' rising clinical workloads have resulted in less time for comprehensive, thoughtful responses to patient questions. Artificial intelligence chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT could help anesthesiologists efficiently respond to electronic patient inquiries, but their ability to do so is unclear. A cross-sectional exploratory survey-based study comprised of 100 anesthesia-related patient question/response sets based on two fictitious simple clinical scenarios was performed. Each question was answered by an independent board-certified anesthesiologist and ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 model, August 3, 2023 version). The responses were randomized and evaluated via survey by three blinded board-certified anesthesiologists for various quality and empathy measures. On a 5-point Likert scale, ChatGPT received similar overall quality ratings (4.2 vs. 4.1, p = .81) and significantly higher overall empathy ratings (3.7 vs. 3.4, p < .01) compared to the anesthesiologist. ChatGPT underperformed the anesthesiologist regarding rate of responses in agreement with scientific consensus (96.6% vs. 99.3%, p = .02) and possibility of harm (4.7% vs. 1.7%, p = .04), but performed similarly in other measures (percentage of responses with inappropriate/incorrect information (5.7% vs. 2.7%, p = .07) and missing information (10.0% vs. 7.0%, p = .19)). In conclusion, LLMs show great potential in healthcare, but additional improvement is needed to decrease the risk of patient harm and reduce the need for close physician oversight. Further research with more complex clinical scenarios, clinicians, and live patients is necessary to validate their role in healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":16338,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Systems","volume":"48 1","pages":"77"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing ChatGPT and a Single Anesthesiologist's Responses to Common Patient Questions: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey of a Panel of Anesthesiologists.\",\"authors\":\"Frederick H Kuo, Jamie L Fierstein, Brant H Tudor, Geoffrey M Gray, Luis M Ahumada, Scott C Watkins, Mohamed A Rehman\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10916-024-02100-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Increased patient access to electronic medical records and resources has resulted in higher volumes of health-related questions posed to clinical staff, while physicians' rising clinical workloads have resulted in less time for comprehensive, thoughtful responses to patient questions. Artificial intelligence chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT could help anesthesiologists efficiently respond to electronic patient inquiries, but their ability to do so is unclear. A cross-sectional exploratory survey-based study comprised of 100 anesthesia-related patient question/response sets based on two fictitious simple clinical scenarios was performed. Each question was answered by an independent board-certified anesthesiologist and ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 model, August 3, 2023 version). The responses were randomized and evaluated via survey by three blinded board-certified anesthesiologists for various quality and empathy measures. On a 5-point Likert scale, ChatGPT received similar overall quality ratings (4.2 vs. 4.1, p = .81) and significantly higher overall empathy ratings (3.7 vs. 3.4, p < .01) compared to the anesthesiologist. ChatGPT underperformed the anesthesiologist regarding rate of responses in agreement with scientific consensus (96.6% vs. 99.3%, p = .02) and possibility of harm (4.7% vs. 1.7%, p = .04), but performed similarly in other measures (percentage of responses with inappropriate/incorrect information (5.7% vs. 2.7%, p = .07) and missing information (10.0% vs. 7.0%, p = .19)). In conclusion, LLMs show great potential in healthcare, but additional improvement is needed to decrease the risk of patient harm and reduce the need for close physician oversight. Further research with more complex clinical scenarios, clinicians, and live patients is necessary to validate their role in healthcare.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Systems\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"77\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-024-02100-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-024-02100-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","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

摘要

患者对电子病历和资源的访问量增加,导致向临床人员提出的健康相关问题增多,而医生的临床工作量不断增加,导致他们没有更多时间对患者的问题做出全面、周到的回答。由大型语言模型(LLM)驱动的人工智能聊天机器人(如 ChatGPT)可以帮助麻醉医生高效地回复患者的电子问询,但其能力尚不明确。我们开展了一项基于横断面探索性调查的研究,其中包括 100 个与麻醉相关的患者问题/回复集,这些问题/回复集基于两个虚构的简单临床场景。每个问题都由独立的麻醉医师和 ChatGPT(GPT-3.5 模型,2023 年 8 月 3 日版本)回答。回答是随机的,并由三位盲人麻醉医师通过调查对各种质量和移情措施进行评估。在 5 点李克特量表中,ChatGPT 获得了相似的总体质量评分(4.2 vs. 4.1,p = .81)和显著更高的总体移情评分(3.7 vs. 3.4,p = .81)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparing ChatGPT and a Single Anesthesiologist's Responses to Common Patient Questions: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey of a Panel of Anesthesiologists.

Comparing ChatGPT and a Single Anesthesiologist's Responses to Common Patient Questions: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey of a Panel of Anesthesiologists.

Increased patient access to electronic medical records and resources has resulted in higher volumes of health-related questions posed to clinical staff, while physicians' rising clinical workloads have resulted in less time for comprehensive, thoughtful responses to patient questions. Artificial intelligence chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT could help anesthesiologists efficiently respond to electronic patient inquiries, but their ability to do so is unclear. A cross-sectional exploratory survey-based study comprised of 100 anesthesia-related patient question/response sets based on two fictitious simple clinical scenarios was performed. Each question was answered by an independent board-certified anesthesiologist and ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 model, August 3, 2023 version). The responses were randomized and evaluated via survey by three blinded board-certified anesthesiologists for various quality and empathy measures. On a 5-point Likert scale, ChatGPT received similar overall quality ratings (4.2 vs. 4.1, p = .81) and significantly higher overall empathy ratings (3.7 vs. 3.4, p < .01) compared to the anesthesiologist. ChatGPT underperformed the anesthesiologist regarding rate of responses in agreement with scientific consensus (96.6% vs. 99.3%, p = .02) and possibility of harm (4.7% vs. 1.7%, p = .04), but performed similarly in other measures (percentage of responses with inappropriate/incorrect information (5.7% vs. 2.7%, p = .07) and missing information (10.0% vs. 7.0%, p = .19)). In conclusion, LLMs show great potential in healthcare, but additional improvement is needed to decrease the risk of patient harm and reduce the need for close physician oversight. Further research with more complex clinical scenarios, clinicians, and live patients is necessary to validate their role in healthcare.

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 Medical Systems
Journal of Medical Systems 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
1.90%
发文量
83
审稿时长
4.8 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Systems provides a forum for the presentation and discussion of the increasingly extensive applications of new systems techniques and methods in hospital clinic and physician''s office administration; pathology radiology and pharmaceutical delivery systems; medical records storage and retrieval; and ancillary patient-support systems. The journal publishes informative articles essays and studies across the entire scale of medical systems from large hospital programs to novel small-scale medical services. Education is an integral part of this amalgamation of sciences and selected articles are published in this area. Since existing medical systems are constantly being modified to fit particular circumstances and to solve specific problems the journal includes a special section devoted to status reports on current installations.
×
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