人工智能有助于在膀胱癌患者病例场景中应用风险分层算法。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Clinical Medicine Insights-Oncology Pub Date : 2024-11-17 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/11795549241296781
Max S Yudovich, Ahmad N Alzubaidi, Jay D Raman
{"title":"人工智能有助于在膀胱癌患者病例场景中应用风险分层算法。","authors":"Max S Yudovich, Ahmad N Alzubaidi, Jay D Raman","doi":"10.1177/11795549241296781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has previously been shown to accurately predict colon cancer screening intervals when provided with clinical data and context in the form of guidelines. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network<sup>®</sup> (NCCN<sup>®</sup>) guideline on non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) includes criteria for risk stratification into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups based on patient and disease characteristics. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ability of ChatGPT to apply the NCCN Guidelines to risk stratify theoretical patient scenarios related to NMIBC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-six hypothetical patient scenarios related to NMIBC were created and submitted to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 at two separate time points. First, both models were prompted to risk stratify patients without any additional context provided. Custom instructions were then provided as textual context using the written versions of the NMIBC NCCN<sup>®</sup> Guidelines, followed by repeat risk stratification. Finally, GPT-4 was provided with an image of the NMIBC risk groups table, and the risk stratification was again performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GPT-3.5 correctly risk stratified 68% (24.5 of 36) of scenarios without context, slightly increasing to 74% (26.5 of 36) with textual context. Using GPT-4, the model had accuracy of 83% (30 of 36) without context, reaching 100% (36 of 36) with textual context (<i>P</i> = .025). GPT-4 with image context maintained similar accuracy to GPT-4 without context, with accuracy 81% (29 of 36). ChatGPT generally performed poorly when stratifying intermediate risk NMIBC (33%-63%). When risk stratification was incorrect, most responses were overestimations of risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GPT-4 can accurately risk stratify patients with respect to NMIBC when provided with context containing guidelines. Overestimation of risk is more common than underestimation, and intermediate risk NMIBC is most likely to be incorrectly stratified. With further validation, GPT-4 can become a tool for risk stratification of NMIBC in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":48591,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine Insights-Oncology","volume":"18 ","pages":"11795549241296781"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571244/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial Intelligence can Facilitate Application of Risk Stratification Algorithms to Bladder Cancer Patient Case Scenarios.\",\"authors\":\"Max S Yudovich, Ahmad N Alzubaidi, Jay D Raman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11795549241296781\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has previously been shown to accurately predict colon cancer screening intervals when provided with clinical data and context in the form of guidelines. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network<sup>®</sup> (NCCN<sup>®</sup>) guideline on non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) includes criteria for risk stratification into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups based on patient and disease characteristics. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ability of ChatGPT to apply the NCCN Guidelines to risk stratify theoretical patient scenarios related to NMIBC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-six hypothetical patient scenarios related to NMIBC were created and submitted to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 at two separate time points. First, both models were prompted to risk stratify patients without any additional context provided. Custom instructions were then provided as textual context using the written versions of the NMIBC NCCN<sup>®</sup> Guidelines, followed by repeat risk stratification. Finally, GPT-4 was provided with an image of the NMIBC risk groups table, and the risk stratification was again performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GPT-3.5 correctly risk stratified 68% (24.5 of 36) of scenarios without context, slightly increasing to 74% (26.5 of 36) with textual context. Using GPT-4, the model had accuracy of 83% (30 of 36) without context, reaching 100% (36 of 36) with textual context (<i>P</i> = .025). GPT-4 with image context maintained similar accuracy to GPT-4 without context, with accuracy 81% (29 of 36). ChatGPT generally performed poorly when stratifying intermediate risk NMIBC (33%-63%). When risk stratification was incorrect, most responses were overestimations of risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GPT-4 can accurately risk stratify patients with respect to NMIBC when provided with context containing guidelines. Overestimation of risk is more common than underestimation, and intermediate risk NMIBC is most likely to be incorrectly stratified. With further validation, GPT-4 can become a tool for risk stratification of NMIBC in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48591,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Medicine Insights-Oncology\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"11795549241296781\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571244/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Medicine Insights-Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11795549241296781\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine Insights-Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11795549241296781","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:聊天生成式预训练变换器(ChatGPT)以前曾被证明能准确预测结肠癌筛查间隔时间,前提是要有临床数据和指南形式的背景资料。美国国家综合癌症网络®(NCCN®)非肌浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)指南包括根据患者和疾病特征将风险分层为低、中、高风险组的标准。本研究的目的是评估 ChatGPT 应用 NCCN 指南对 NMIBC 相关理论患者进行风险分层的能力:方法:创建了 36 个与 NMIBC 相关的假设患者情景,并在两个不同的时间点分别提交给 GPT-3.5 和 GPT-4。首先,这两个模型都被提示对患者进行风险分层,而不提供任何额外的背景信息。然后,使用 NMIBC NCCN® 指南的书面版本以文本形式提供自定义说明,然后重复进行风险分层。最后,向 GPT-4 提供 NMIBC 风险组表格的图像,并再次进行风险分层:结果:GPT-3.5 在没有上下文的情况下,风险分层的正确率为 68%(36 个方案中的 24.5 个),在有文字上下文的情况下,正确率略微提高到 74%(36 个方案中的 26.5 个)。使用 GPT-4,在没有上下文的情况下,模型的准确率为 83%(36 例中的 30 例),在有文字上下文的情况下,准确率达到 100%(36 例中的 36 例)(P = 0.025)。有图像上下文的 GPT-4 与无上下文的 GPT-4 保持了相似的准确率,准确率为 81%(36 人中有 29 人)。在对中等风险的 NMIBC 进行分层时,ChatGPT 的表现普遍较差(33%-63%)。当风险分层不正确时,大多数回答都高估了风险:结论:如果提供包含指南的上下文,GPT-4 可以对 NMIBC 患者进行准确的风险分层。高估风险比低估风险更常见,中度风险的 NMIBC 最有可能被错误分层。经过进一步验证,GPT-4 可以成为临床实践中对 NMIBC 进行风险分层的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial Intelligence can Facilitate Application of Risk Stratification Algorithms to Bladder Cancer Patient Case Scenarios.

Background: Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has previously been shown to accurately predict colon cancer screening intervals when provided with clinical data and context in the form of guidelines. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) guideline on non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) includes criteria for risk stratification into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups based on patient and disease characteristics. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ability of ChatGPT to apply the NCCN Guidelines to risk stratify theoretical patient scenarios related to NMIBC.

Methods: Thirty-six hypothetical patient scenarios related to NMIBC were created and submitted to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 at two separate time points. First, both models were prompted to risk stratify patients without any additional context provided. Custom instructions were then provided as textual context using the written versions of the NMIBC NCCN® Guidelines, followed by repeat risk stratification. Finally, GPT-4 was provided with an image of the NMIBC risk groups table, and the risk stratification was again performed.

Results: GPT-3.5 correctly risk stratified 68% (24.5 of 36) of scenarios without context, slightly increasing to 74% (26.5 of 36) with textual context. Using GPT-4, the model had accuracy of 83% (30 of 36) without context, reaching 100% (36 of 36) with textual context (P = .025). GPT-4 with image context maintained similar accuracy to GPT-4 without context, with accuracy 81% (29 of 36). ChatGPT generally performed poorly when stratifying intermediate risk NMIBC (33%-63%). When risk stratification was incorrect, most responses were overestimations of risk.

Conclusions: GPT-4 can accurately risk stratify patients with respect to NMIBC when provided with context containing guidelines. Overestimation of risk is more common than underestimation, and intermediate risk NMIBC is most likely to be incorrectly stratified. With further validation, GPT-4 can become a tool for risk stratification of NMIBC in clinical practice.

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
2.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
57
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Medicine Insights: Oncology is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that focuses on all aspects of cancer research and treatment, in addition to related genetic, pathophysiological and epidemiological topics. Of particular but not exclusive importance are molecular biology, clinical interventions, controlled trials, therapeutics, pharmacology and drug delivery, and techniques of cancer surgery. The journal welcomes unsolicited article proposals.
×
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