ChatGPT 能否帮助患者了解放射性药物外渗?

Madeleine Alvarez
{"title":"ChatGPT 能否帮助患者了解放射性药物外渗?","authors":"Madeleine Alvarez","doi":"10.3389/fnume.2024.1469487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A previously published paper in the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) concluded that the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT may offer an adequate substitute for nuclear medicine staff informational counseling to patients in an investigated setting of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT. To ensure consistency with the previous paper, the author and a team of experts followed a similar methodology and evaluated whether ChatGPT could adequately offer a substitute for nuclear medicine staff informational counseling to patients regarding radiopharmaceutical extravasations. We asked ChatGPT fifteen questions regarding radiopharmaceutical extravasations. Each question or prompt was queried three times. Using the same evaluation criteria as the previously published paper, the ChatGPT responses were evaluated by two nuclear medicine trained physicians and one nuclear medicine physicist for appropriateness and helpfulness. These evaluators found ChatGPT responses to be either highly appropriate or quite appropriate in 100% of questions and very helpful or quite helpful in 93% of questions. The interobserver agreement among the evaluators, assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), was found to be 0.72, indicating good overall agreement. The evaluators also rated the inconsistency across the three ChatGPT responses for each question and found irrelevant or minor inconsistencies in 87% of questions and some differences relevant to main content in the other 13% of the questions. One physician evaluated the quality of the references listed by ChatGPT as the source material it used in generating its responses. The reference check revealed no AI hallucinations. The evaluator concluded that ChatGPT used fully validated references (appropriate, identifiable, and accessible) to generate responses for eleven of the fifteen questions and used generally available medical and ethical guidelines to generate responses for four questions. Based on these results we concluded that ChatGPT may be a reliable resource for patients interested in radiopharmaceutical extravasations. However, these validated and verified ChatGPT responses differed significantly from official positions and public comments regarding radiopharmaceutical extravasations made by the SNMMI and nuclear medicine staff. Since patients are increasingly relying on the internet for information about their medical procedures, the differences need to be addressed.</p>","PeriodicalId":73095,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in nuclear medicine (Lausanne, Switzerland)","volume":"4 ","pages":"1469487"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11576157/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can ChatGPT help patients understand radiopharmaceutical extravasations?\",\"authors\":\"Madeleine Alvarez\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fnume.2024.1469487\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A previously published paper in the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) concluded that the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT may offer an adequate substitute for nuclear medicine staff informational counseling to patients in an investigated setting of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT. To ensure consistency with the previous paper, the author and a team of experts followed a similar methodology and evaluated whether ChatGPT could adequately offer a substitute for nuclear medicine staff informational counseling to patients regarding radiopharmaceutical extravasations. We asked ChatGPT fifteen questions regarding radiopharmaceutical extravasations. Each question or prompt was queried three times. Using the same evaluation criteria as the previously published paper, the ChatGPT responses were evaluated by two nuclear medicine trained physicians and one nuclear medicine physicist for appropriateness and helpfulness. These evaluators found ChatGPT responses to be either highly appropriate or quite appropriate in 100% of questions and very helpful or quite helpful in 93% of questions. The interobserver agreement among the evaluators, assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), was found to be 0.72, indicating good overall agreement. The evaluators also rated the inconsistency across the three ChatGPT responses for each question and found irrelevant or minor inconsistencies in 87% of questions and some differences relevant to main content in the other 13% of the questions. One physician evaluated the quality of the references listed by ChatGPT as the source material it used in generating its responses. The reference check revealed no AI hallucinations. The evaluator concluded that ChatGPT used fully validated references (appropriate, identifiable, and accessible) to generate responses for eleven of the fifteen questions and used generally available medical and ethical guidelines to generate responses for four questions. Based on these results we concluded that ChatGPT may be a reliable resource for patients interested in radiopharmaceutical extravasations. However, these validated and verified ChatGPT responses differed significantly from official positions and public comments regarding radiopharmaceutical extravasations made by the SNMMI and nuclear medicine staff. Since patients are increasingly relying on the internet for information about their medical procedures, the differences need to be addressed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73095,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in nuclear medicine (Lausanne, Switzerland)\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"1469487\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11576157/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in nuclear medicine (Lausanne, Switzerland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnume.2024.1469487\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in nuclear medicine (Lausanne, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnume.2024.1469487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

核医学与分子成像学会(SNMMI)官方期刊此前发表的一篇论文认为,在 18F-FDG PET/CT 的调查环境中,人工智能聊天机器人 ChatGPT 可以充分替代核医学人员为患者提供的信息咨询。为了确保与前一篇论文保持一致,作者和专家团队采用了类似的方法,评估了 ChatGPT 是否能充分替代核医学人员向患者提供有关放射性药物外渗的信息咨询。我们向 ChatGPT 提出了 15 个有关放射性药物外渗的问题。每个问题或提示都查询了三次。两位接受过核医学培训的医生和一位核医学物理学家采用与之前发表的论文相同的评估标准,对 ChatGPT 的回答进行了适当性和有用性评估。这些评估人员发现,100% 的问题的 ChatGPT 回答非常合适或相当合适,93% 的问题的 ChatGPT 回答非常有帮助或相当有帮助。使用类内相关系数 (ICC) 评估发现,评估者之间的一致性为 0.72,表明总体一致性良好。评估人员还对每个问题的三个 ChatGPT 回答的不一致性进行了评级,发现 87% 的问题存在无关或轻微的不一致性,另外 13% 的问题存在与主要内容相关的一些差异。一位医生对 ChatGPT 所列参考文献的质量进行了评估,这些参考文献是 ChatGPT 在生成回复时使用的原始材料。参考文献检查没有发现人工智能幻觉。评估人员得出结论,在 15 个问题中,ChatGPT 使用了完全有效的参考资料(适当、可识别和可访问)来生成 11 个问题的回复,并使用了普遍可用的医学和伦理指南来生成 4 个问题的回复。基于这些结果,我们得出结论:对于对放射性药物外渗感兴趣的患者来说,ChatGPT 可能是一个可靠的资源。但是,这些经过验证和核实的 ChatGPT 回答与 SNMMI 和核医学工作人员就放射性药物外渗问题所发表的官方立场和公开评论存在很大差异。由于患者越来越多地依赖互联网了解医疗程序的相关信息,因此需要解决这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can ChatGPT help patients understand radiopharmaceutical extravasations?

A previously published paper in the official journal of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) concluded that the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT may offer an adequate substitute for nuclear medicine staff informational counseling to patients in an investigated setting of 18F-FDG PET/CT. To ensure consistency with the previous paper, the author and a team of experts followed a similar methodology and evaluated whether ChatGPT could adequately offer a substitute for nuclear medicine staff informational counseling to patients regarding radiopharmaceutical extravasations. We asked ChatGPT fifteen questions regarding radiopharmaceutical extravasations. Each question or prompt was queried three times. Using the same evaluation criteria as the previously published paper, the ChatGPT responses were evaluated by two nuclear medicine trained physicians and one nuclear medicine physicist for appropriateness and helpfulness. These evaluators found ChatGPT responses to be either highly appropriate or quite appropriate in 100% of questions and very helpful or quite helpful in 93% of questions. The interobserver agreement among the evaluators, assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), was found to be 0.72, indicating good overall agreement. The evaluators also rated the inconsistency across the three ChatGPT responses for each question and found irrelevant or minor inconsistencies in 87% of questions and some differences relevant to main content in the other 13% of the questions. One physician evaluated the quality of the references listed by ChatGPT as the source material it used in generating its responses. The reference check revealed no AI hallucinations. The evaluator concluded that ChatGPT used fully validated references (appropriate, identifiable, and accessible) to generate responses for eleven of the fifteen questions and used generally available medical and ethical guidelines to generate responses for four questions. Based on these results we concluded that ChatGPT may be a reliable resource for patients interested in radiopharmaceutical extravasations. However, these validated and verified ChatGPT responses differed significantly from official positions and public comments regarding radiopharmaceutical extravasations made by the SNMMI and nuclear medicine staff. Since patients are increasingly relying on the internet for information about their medical procedures, the differences need to be addressed.

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
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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