ChatGPT 解决复杂的肾移植案例:与人类受访者的比较研究

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Michal A. Mankowski, Ian S. Jaffe, Jingzhi Xu, Sunjae Bae, Eric K. Oermann, Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs, Mara A. McAdams-DeMarco, Bonnie E. Lonze, Babak J. Orandi, Darren Stewart, Macey Levan, Allan Massie, Sommer Gentry, Dorry L. Segev
{"title":"ChatGPT 解决复杂的肾移植案例:与人类受访者的比较研究","authors":"Michal A. Mankowski,&nbsp;Ian S. Jaffe,&nbsp;Jingzhi Xu,&nbsp;Sunjae Bae,&nbsp;Eric K. Oermann,&nbsp;Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs,&nbsp;Mara A. McAdams-DeMarco,&nbsp;Bonnie E. Lonze,&nbsp;Babak J. Orandi,&nbsp;Darren Stewart,&nbsp;Macey Levan,&nbsp;Allan Massie,&nbsp;Sommer Gentry,&nbsp;Dorry L. Segev","doi":"10.1111/ctr.15466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>ChatGPT has shown the ability to answer clinical questions in general medicine but may be constrained by the specialized nature of kidney transplantation. Thus, it is important to explore how ChatGPT can be used in kidney transplantation and how its knowledge compares to human respondents.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We prompted ChatGPT versions 3.5, 4, and 4 Visual (4 V) with 12 multiple-choice questions related to six kidney transplant cases from 2013 to 2015 American Society of Nephrology (ASN) fellowship program quizzes. We compared the performance of ChatGPT with US nephrology fellowship program directors, nephrology fellows, and the audience of the ASN's annual Kidney Week meeting.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, ChatGPT 4 V correctly answered 10 out of 12 questions, showing a performance level comparable to nephrology fellows (group majority correctly answered 9 of 12 questions) and training program directors (11 of 12). This surpassed ChatGPT 4 (7 of 12 correct) and 3.5 (5 of 12). All three ChatGPT versions failed to correctly answer questions where the consensus among human respondents was low.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Each iterative version of ChatGPT performed better than the prior version, with version 4 V achieving performance on par with nephrology fellows and training program directors. While it shows promise in understanding and answering kidney transplantation questions, ChatGPT should be seen as a complementary tool to human expertise rather than a replacement.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10467,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Transplantation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT Solving Complex Kidney Transplant Cases: A Comparative Study With Human Respondents\",\"authors\":\"Michal A. Mankowski,&nbsp;Ian S. Jaffe,&nbsp;Jingzhi Xu,&nbsp;Sunjae Bae,&nbsp;Eric K. Oermann,&nbsp;Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs,&nbsp;Mara A. McAdams-DeMarco,&nbsp;Bonnie E. Lonze,&nbsp;Babak J. Orandi,&nbsp;Darren Stewart,&nbsp;Macey Levan,&nbsp;Allan Massie,&nbsp;Sommer Gentry,&nbsp;Dorry L. Segev\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ctr.15466\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>ChatGPT has shown the ability to answer clinical questions in general medicine but may be constrained by the specialized nature of kidney transplantation. Thus, it is important to explore how ChatGPT can be used in kidney transplantation and how its knowledge compares to human respondents.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We prompted ChatGPT versions 3.5, 4, and 4 Visual (4 V) with 12 multiple-choice questions related to six kidney transplant cases from 2013 to 2015 American Society of Nephrology (ASN) fellowship program quizzes. We compared the performance of ChatGPT with US nephrology fellowship program directors, nephrology fellows, and the audience of the ASN's annual Kidney Week meeting.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Overall, ChatGPT 4 V correctly answered 10 out of 12 questions, showing a performance level comparable to nephrology fellows (group majority correctly answered 9 of 12 questions) and training program directors (11 of 12). This surpassed ChatGPT 4 (7 of 12 correct) and 3.5 (5 of 12). All three ChatGPT versions failed to correctly answer questions where the consensus among human respondents was low.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Each iterative version of ChatGPT performed better than the prior version, with version 4 V achieving performance on par with nephrology fellows and training program directors. While it shows promise in understanding and answering kidney transplantation questions, ChatGPT should be seen as a complementary tool to human expertise rather than a replacement.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Transplantation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Transplantation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.15466\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.15466","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:ChatGPT 已显示出回答普通医学临床问题的能力,但可能会受到肾移植专业性的限制。因此,探索 ChatGPT 如何用于肾移植以及它的知识与人类受访者的知识相比如何是非常重要的。 方法 我们在 ChatGPT 3.5、4 和 4 Visual (4 V) 版本中设置了 12 道选择题,涉及 2013 年至 2015 年美国肾脏病学会(ASN)研究员项目测验中的六个肾移植病例。我们将 ChatGPT 的表现与美国肾脏病学研究员项目主任、肾脏病学研究员以及 ASN 年度肾脏周会议的观众进行了比较。 结果 总体而言,ChatGPT 4 V 正确回答了 12 个问题中的 10 个,表现出与肾脏病学研究员(大多数人正确回答了 12 个问题中的 9 个)和培训项目主任(12 个问题中的 11 个)相当的水平。这超过了 ChatGPT 4(12 题中答对 7 题)和 3.5(12 题中答对 5 题)。所有三个 ChatGPT 版本都未能正确回答人类受访者共识度较低的问题。 结论 ChatGPT 的每个迭代版本都比之前的版本表现更好,第 4 V 版的表现与肾脏病学研究员和培训项目主任相当。虽然 ChatGPT 在理解和回答肾移植问题方面大有可为,但应将其视为人类专业知识的补充工具,而不是替代品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ChatGPT Solving Complex Kidney Transplant Cases: A Comparative Study With Human Respondents

Introduction

ChatGPT has shown the ability to answer clinical questions in general medicine but may be constrained by the specialized nature of kidney transplantation. Thus, it is important to explore how ChatGPT can be used in kidney transplantation and how its knowledge compares to human respondents.

Methods

We prompted ChatGPT versions 3.5, 4, and 4 Visual (4 V) with 12 multiple-choice questions related to six kidney transplant cases from 2013 to 2015 American Society of Nephrology (ASN) fellowship program quizzes. We compared the performance of ChatGPT with US nephrology fellowship program directors, nephrology fellows, and the audience of the ASN's annual Kidney Week meeting.

Results

Overall, ChatGPT 4 V correctly answered 10 out of 12 questions, showing a performance level comparable to nephrology fellows (group majority correctly answered 9 of 12 questions) and training program directors (11 of 12). This surpassed ChatGPT 4 (7 of 12 correct) and 3.5 (5 of 12). All three ChatGPT versions failed to correctly answer questions where the consensus among human respondents was low.

Conclusion

Each iterative version of ChatGPT performed better than the prior version, with version 4 V achieving performance on par with nephrology fellows and training program directors. While it shows promise in understanding and answering kidney transplantation questions, ChatGPT should be seen as a complementary tool to human expertise rather than a replacement.

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
Clinical Transplantation
Clinical Transplantation 医学-外科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
286
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Transplantation: The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research aims to serve as a channel of rapid communication for all those involved in the care of patients who require, or have had, organ or tissue transplants, including: kidney, intestine, liver, pancreas, islets, heart, heart valves, lung, bone marrow, cornea, skin, bone, and cartilage, viable or stored. Published monthly, Clinical Transplantation’s scope is focused on the complete spectrum of present transplant therapies, as well as also those that are experimental or may become possible in future. Topics include: Immunology and immunosuppression; Patient preparation; Social, ethical, and psychological issues; Complications, short- and long-term results; Artificial organs; Donation and preservation of organ and tissue; Translational studies; Advances in tissue typing; Updates on transplant pathology;. Clinical and translational studies are particularly welcome, as well as focused reviews. Full-length papers and short communications are invited. Clinical reviews are encouraged, as well as seminal papers in basic science which might lead to immediate clinical application. Prominence is regularly given to the results of cooperative surveys conducted by the organ and tissue transplant registries. Clinical Transplantation: The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research is essential reading for clinicians and researchers in the diverse field of transplantation: surgeons; clinical immunologists; cryobiologists; hematologists; gastroenterologists; hepatologists; pulmonologists; nephrologists; cardiologists; and endocrinologists. It will also be of interest to sociologists, psychologists, research workers, and to all health professionals whose combined efforts will improve the prognosis of transplant recipients.
×
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