牙科手术中感染性心内膜炎预防大语言模型的准确性。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Paak Rewthamrongsris , Jirayu Burapacheep , Vorapat Trachoo , Thantrira Porntaveetus
{"title":"牙科手术中感染性心内膜炎预防大语言模型的准确性。","authors":"Paak Rewthamrongsris ,&nbsp;Jirayu Burapacheep ,&nbsp;Vorapat Trachoo ,&nbsp;Thantrira Porntaveetus","doi":"10.1016/j.identj.2024.09.033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious, life-threatening condition requiring antibiotic prophylaxis for high-risk individuals undergoing invasive dental procedures. As LLMs are rapidly adopted by dental professionals for their efficiency and accessibility, assessing their accuracy in answering critical questions about antibiotic prophylaxis for IE prevention is crucial.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Twenty-eight true/false questions based on the 2021 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for IE were posed to 7 popular LLMs. Each model underwent five independent runs per question using two prompt strategies: a pre-prompt as an experienced dentist and without a pre-prompt. Inter-model comparisons utilised the Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons using Prism 10 software.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Significant differences in accuracy were observed among the LLMs. All LLMs had a narrower confidence interval with a pre-prompt, and most, except Claude 3 Opus, showed improved performance. GPT-4o had the highest accuracy (80% with a pre-prompt, 78.57% without), followed by Gemini 1.5 Pro (78.57% and 77.86%) and Claude 3 Opus (75.71% and 77.14%). Gemini 1.5 Flash had the lowest accuracy (68.57% and 63.57%). Without a pre-prompt, Gemini 1.5 Flash's accuracy was significantly lower than Claude 3 Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and GPT-4o. With a pre-prompt, Gemini 1.5 Flash and Claude 3.5 were significantly less accurate than Gemini 1.5 Pro and GPT-4o. None of the LLMs met the commonly used benchmark scores. All models provided both correct and incorrect answers randomly, except Claude 3.5 Sonnet with a pre-prompt, which consistently gave incorrect answers to eight questions across five runs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>LLMs like GPT-4o show promise for retrieving AHA-IE guideline information, achieving up to 80% accuracy. However, complex medical questions may still pose a challenge. Pre-prompts offer a potential solution, and domain-specific training is essential for optimizing LLM performance in healthcare, especially with the emergence of models with increased token limits.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13785,"journal":{"name":"International dental journal","volume":"75 1","pages":"Pages 206-212"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Large Language Models for Infective Endocarditis Prophylaxis in Dental Procedures\",\"authors\":\"Paak Rewthamrongsris ,&nbsp;Jirayu Burapacheep ,&nbsp;Vorapat Trachoo ,&nbsp;Thantrira Porntaveetus\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.identj.2024.09.033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious, life-threatening condition requiring antibiotic prophylaxis for high-risk individuals undergoing invasive dental procedures. As LLMs are rapidly adopted by dental professionals for their efficiency and accessibility, assessing their accuracy in answering critical questions about antibiotic prophylaxis for IE prevention is crucial.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Twenty-eight true/false questions based on the 2021 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for IE were posed to 7 popular LLMs. Each model underwent five independent runs per question using two prompt strategies: a pre-prompt as an experienced dentist and without a pre-prompt. Inter-model comparisons utilised the Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons using Prism 10 software.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Significant differences in accuracy were observed among the LLMs. All LLMs had a narrower confidence interval with a pre-prompt, and most, except Claude 3 Opus, showed improved performance. GPT-4o had the highest accuracy (80% with a pre-prompt, 78.57% without), followed by Gemini 1.5 Pro (78.57% and 77.86%) and Claude 3 Opus (75.71% and 77.14%). Gemini 1.5 Flash had the lowest accuracy (68.57% and 63.57%). Without a pre-prompt, Gemini 1.5 Flash's accuracy was significantly lower than Claude 3 Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and GPT-4o. With a pre-prompt, Gemini 1.5 Flash and Claude 3.5 were significantly less accurate than Gemini 1.5 Pro and GPT-4o. None of the LLMs met the commonly used benchmark scores. All models provided both correct and incorrect answers randomly, except Claude 3.5 Sonnet with a pre-prompt, which consistently gave incorrect answers to eight questions across five runs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>LLMs like GPT-4o show promise for retrieving AHA-IE guideline information, achieving up to 80% accuracy. However, complex medical questions may still pose a challenge. Pre-prompts offer a potential solution, and domain-specific training is essential for optimizing LLM performance in healthcare, especially with the emergence of models with increased token limits.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13785,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International dental journal\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 206-212\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International dental journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020653924015466\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International dental journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020653924015466","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:感染性心内膜炎(IE)是一种严重威胁生命的疾病,需要对接受侵入性牙科手术的高危人群进行抗生素预防。随着 LLM 因其高效性和易用性被牙科专业人员迅速采用,评估其在回答有关 IE 预防的抗生素预防的关键问题时的准确性至关重要:方法: 根据美国心脏协会(AHA)2021 年 IE 指南,向 7 个流行的 LLM 提出了 28 个真/假问题。每个模型使用两种提示策略对每个问题进行了五次独立运行:作为经验丰富的牙医进行预提示和不进行预提示。模型间比较采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验,然后使用 Prism 10 软件进行事后配对比较:结果:结果表明,低龄牙医的准确性存在显著差异。所有 LLM 在预提示下的置信区间都较窄,除 Claude 3 Opus 外,大多数 LLM 的性能都有所提高。GPT-4o 的准确率最高(有预提示时为 80%,无预提示时为 78.57%),其次是 Gemini 1.5 Pro(78.57% 和 77.86%)和 Claude 3 Opus(75.71% 和 77.14%)。Gemini 1.5 Flash 的准确率最低(68.57% 和 63.57%)。在没有预先提示的情况下,Gemini 1.5 Flash 的准确率明显低于 Claude 3 Opus、Gemini 1.5 Pro 和 GPT-4o。在有预先提示的情况下,Gemini 1.5 Flash 和 Claude 3.5 的准确度明显低于 Gemini 1.5 Pro 和 GPT-4o。没有一个 LLM 达到常用的基准分数。所有模型都随机提供了正确答案和错误答案,只有 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 采用了预先提示,在 5 次运行中对 8 个问题始终给出了错误答案:结论:GPT-4o 等 LLM 在检索 AHA-IE 指南信息方面大有可为,准确率高达 80%。然而,复杂的医学问题仍可能构成挑战。针对特定领域的训练对于优化 LLM 在医疗保健领域的性能至关重要,特别是随着令牌限制增加的模型的出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy of Large Language Models for Infective Endocarditis Prophylaxis in Dental Procedures

Purpose

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious, life-threatening condition requiring antibiotic prophylaxis for high-risk individuals undergoing invasive dental procedures. As LLMs are rapidly adopted by dental professionals for their efficiency and accessibility, assessing their accuracy in answering critical questions about antibiotic prophylaxis for IE prevention is crucial.

Methods

Twenty-eight true/false questions based on the 2021 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for IE were posed to 7 popular LLMs. Each model underwent five independent runs per question using two prompt strategies: a pre-prompt as an experienced dentist and without a pre-prompt. Inter-model comparisons utilised the Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons using Prism 10 software.

Results

Significant differences in accuracy were observed among the LLMs. All LLMs had a narrower confidence interval with a pre-prompt, and most, except Claude 3 Opus, showed improved performance. GPT-4o had the highest accuracy (80% with a pre-prompt, 78.57% without), followed by Gemini 1.5 Pro (78.57% and 77.86%) and Claude 3 Opus (75.71% and 77.14%). Gemini 1.5 Flash had the lowest accuracy (68.57% and 63.57%). Without a pre-prompt, Gemini 1.5 Flash's accuracy was significantly lower than Claude 3 Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and GPT-4o. With a pre-prompt, Gemini 1.5 Flash and Claude 3.5 were significantly less accurate than Gemini 1.5 Pro and GPT-4o. None of the LLMs met the commonly used benchmark scores. All models provided both correct and incorrect answers randomly, except Claude 3.5 Sonnet with a pre-prompt, which consistently gave incorrect answers to eight questions across five runs.

Conclusion

LLMs like GPT-4o show promise for retrieving AHA-IE guideline information, achieving up to 80% accuracy. However, complex medical questions may still pose a challenge. Pre-prompts offer a potential solution, and domain-specific training is essential for optimizing LLM performance in healthcare, especially with the emergence of models with increased token limits.
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
International dental journal
International dental journal 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
6.10%
发文量
159
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: The International Dental Journal features peer-reviewed, scientific articles relevant to international oral health issues, as well as practical, informative articles aimed at clinicians.
×
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