人工智能在生理肌肉骨骼病理管理中的影响:一项定性观察性研究,评估ChatGPT与Copilot在腰痛患者信息和临床建议方面的潜在应用。

IF 1.4 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Journal of Yeungnam medical science Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-29 DOI:10.12701/jyms.2024.01151
Christophe Ah-Yan, Ève Boissonnault, Mathieu Boudier-Revéret, Christopher Mares
{"title":"人工智能在生理肌肉骨骼病理管理中的影响:一项定性观察性研究,评估ChatGPT与Copilot在腰痛患者信息和临床建议方面的潜在应用。","authors":"Christophe Ah-Yan, Ève Boissonnault, Mathieu Boudier-Revéret, Christopher Mares","doi":"10.12701/jyms.2024.01151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The self-management of low back pain (LBP) through patient information interventions offers significant benefits in terms of cost, reduced work absenteeism, and overall healthcare utilization. Using a large language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT (OpenAI) or Copilot (Microsoft), could potentially enhance these outcomes further. Thus, it is important to evaluate the LLMs ChatGPT and Copilot in providing medical advice for LBP and assessing the impact of clinical context on the quality of responses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a qualitative comparative observational study. It was conducted within the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Montreal in Montreal, QC, Canada. ChatGPT and Copilot were used to answer 27 common questions related to LBP, with and without a specific clinical context. The responses were evaluated by physiatrists for validity, safety, and usefulness using a 4-point Likert scale (4, most favorable).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both ChatGPT and Copilot demonstrated good performance across all measures. Validity scores were 3.33 for ChatGPT and 3.18 for Copilot, safety scores were 3.19 for ChatGPT and 3.13 for Copilot, and usefulness scores were 3.60 for ChatGPT and 3.57 for Copilot. The inclusion of clinical context did not significantly change the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LLMs, such as ChatGPT and Copilot, can provide reliable medical advice on LBP, irrespective of the detailed clinical context, supporting their potential to aid in patient self-management.</p>","PeriodicalId":74020,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Yeungnam medical science","volume":" ","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11812099/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of artificial intelligence in managing musculoskeletal pathologies in physiatry: a qualitative observational study evaluating the potential use of ChatGPT versus Copilot for patient information and clinical advice on low back pain.\",\"authors\":\"Christophe Ah-Yan, Ève Boissonnault, Mathieu Boudier-Revéret, Christopher Mares\",\"doi\":\"10.12701/jyms.2024.01151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The self-management of low back pain (LBP) through patient information interventions offers significant benefits in terms of cost, reduced work absenteeism, and overall healthcare utilization. Using a large language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT (OpenAI) or Copilot (Microsoft), could potentially enhance these outcomes further. Thus, it is important to evaluate the LLMs ChatGPT and Copilot in providing medical advice for LBP and assessing the impact of clinical context on the quality of responses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a qualitative comparative observational study. It was conducted within the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Montreal in Montreal, QC, Canada. ChatGPT and Copilot were used to answer 27 common questions related to LBP, with and without a specific clinical context. The responses were evaluated by physiatrists for validity, safety, and usefulness using a 4-point Likert scale (4, most favorable).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both ChatGPT and Copilot demonstrated good performance across all measures. Validity scores were 3.33 for ChatGPT and 3.18 for Copilot, safety scores were 3.19 for ChatGPT and 3.13 for Copilot, and usefulness scores were 3.60 for ChatGPT and 3.57 for Copilot. The inclusion of clinical context did not significantly change the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LLMs, such as ChatGPT and Copilot, can provide reliable medical advice on LBP, irrespective of the detailed clinical context, supporting their potential to aid in patient self-management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74020,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Yeungnam medical science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11812099/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Yeungnam medical science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12701/jyms.2024.01151\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Yeungnam medical science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12701/jyms.2024.01151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:通过患者信息干预对腰痛(LBP)的自我管理在成本、减少缺勤和整体医疗保健利用方面具有显著的好处。使用大型语言模型(LLM),如ChatGPT (OpenAI)或Copilot(微软),可能会进一步增强这些结果。因此,评估LLMs ChatGPT和Copilot在为LBP提供医疗建议和评估临床环境对反应质量的影响方面非常重要。方法:定性比较观察性研究。该研究是在加拿大蒙特利尔的蒙特利尔大学物理医学和康复系进行的。ChatGPT和Copilot用于回答27个与LBP相关的常见问题,无论是否有特定的临床背景。理疗师使用4分李克特量表(4分,最有利)评估这些回答的有效性、安全性和有用性。结果:ChatGPT和Copilot在所有测量中都表现出良好的性能。ChatGPT的效度得分为3.33分,副驾驶为3.18分;ChatGPT的安全性得分为3.19分,副驾驶为3.13分;ChatGPT的有用性得分为3.60分,副驾驶为3.57分。纳入临床背景并没有显著改变结果。结论:无论详细的临床背景如何,ChatGPT和Copilot等llm都可以提供可靠的LBP医疗建议,支持它们帮助患者自我管理的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of artificial intelligence in managing musculoskeletal pathologies in physiatry: a qualitative observational study evaluating the potential use of ChatGPT versus Copilot for patient information and clinical advice on low back pain.

Background: The self-management of low back pain (LBP) through patient information interventions offers significant benefits in terms of cost, reduced work absenteeism, and overall healthcare utilization. Using a large language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT (OpenAI) or Copilot (Microsoft), could potentially enhance these outcomes further. Thus, it is important to evaluate the LLMs ChatGPT and Copilot in providing medical advice for LBP and assessing the impact of clinical context on the quality of responses.

Methods: This was a qualitative comparative observational study. It was conducted within the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Montreal in Montreal, QC, Canada. ChatGPT and Copilot were used to answer 27 common questions related to LBP, with and without a specific clinical context. The responses were evaluated by physiatrists for validity, safety, and usefulness using a 4-point Likert scale (4, most favorable).

Results: Both ChatGPT and Copilot demonstrated good performance across all measures. Validity scores were 3.33 for ChatGPT and 3.18 for Copilot, safety scores were 3.19 for ChatGPT and 3.13 for Copilot, and usefulness scores were 3.60 for ChatGPT and 3.57 for Copilot. The inclusion of clinical context did not significantly change the results.

Conclusion: LLMs, such as ChatGPT and Copilot, can provide reliable medical advice on LBP, irrespective of the detailed clinical context, supporting their potential to aid in patient self-management.

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
0.80
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信