聊天机器人文献检索在放射肿瘤学中的应用。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Justina Wong, Conley Kriegler, Ananya Shrivastava, Adele Duimering, Connie Le
{"title":"聊天机器人文献检索在放射肿瘤学中的应用。","authors":"Justina Wong, Conley Kriegler, Ananya Shrivastava, Adele Duimering, Connie Le","doi":"10.1007/s13187-024-02547-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial intelligence and natural language processing tools have shown promise in oncology by assisting with medical literature retrieval and providing patient support. The potential for these technologies to generate inaccurate yet seemingly correct information poses significant challenges. This study evaluates the effectiveness, benefits, and limitations of ChatGPT for clinical use in conducting literature reviews of radiation oncology treatments. This cross-sectional study used ChatGPT version 3.5 to generate literature searches on radiotherapy options for seven tumor sites, with prompts issued five times per site to generate up to 50 publications per tumor type. The publications were verified using the Scopus database and categorized as correct, irrelevant, or non-existent. Statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA compared the impact factors and citation counts across different tumor sites. Among the 350 publications generated, there were 44 correct, 298 non-existent, and 8 irrelevant papers. The average publication year of all generated papers was 2011, compared to 2009 for the correct papers. The average impact factor of all generated papers was 38.8, compared to 113.8 for the correct papers. There were significant differences in the publication year, impact factor, and citation counts between tumor sites for both correct and non-existent papers. Our study highlights both the potential utility and significant limitations of using AI, specifically ChatGPT 3.5, in radiation oncology literature reviews. The findings emphasize the need for verification of AI outputs, development of standardized quality assurance protocols, and continued research into AI biases to ensure reliable integration into clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utility of Chatbot Literature Search in Radiation Oncology.\",\"authors\":\"Justina Wong, Conley Kriegler, Ananya Shrivastava, Adele Duimering, Connie Le\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13187-024-02547-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Artificial intelligence and natural language processing tools have shown promise in oncology by assisting with medical literature retrieval and providing patient support. The potential for these technologies to generate inaccurate yet seemingly correct information poses significant challenges. This study evaluates the effectiveness, benefits, and limitations of ChatGPT for clinical use in conducting literature reviews of radiation oncology treatments. This cross-sectional study used ChatGPT version 3.5 to generate literature searches on radiotherapy options for seven tumor sites, with prompts issued five times per site to generate up to 50 publications per tumor type. The publications were verified using the Scopus database and categorized as correct, irrelevant, or non-existent. Statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA compared the impact factors and citation counts across different tumor sites. Among the 350 publications generated, there were 44 correct, 298 non-existent, and 8 irrelevant papers. The average publication year of all generated papers was 2011, compared to 2009 for the correct papers. The average impact factor of all generated papers was 38.8, compared to 113.8 for the correct papers. There were significant differences in the publication year, impact factor, and citation counts between tumor sites for both correct and non-existent papers. Our study highlights both the potential utility and significant limitations of using AI, specifically ChatGPT 3.5, in radiation oncology literature reviews. The findings emphasize the need for verification of AI outputs, development of standardized quality assurance protocols, and continued research into AI biases to ensure reliable integration into clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-024-02547-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-024-02547-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能和自然语言处理工具通过协助医学文献检索和提供患者支持,在肿瘤学中显示出了希望。这些技术可能产生不准确但看似正确的信息,这构成了重大挑战。本研究评估了ChatGPT在放射肿瘤学治疗的临床应用中的有效性、益处和局限性。本横断面研究使用ChatGPT 3.5版本生成七个肿瘤部位放射治疗选择的文献检索,每个部位发布5次提示,每种肿瘤类型最多生成50篇出版物。使用Scopus数据库对出版物进行验证,并将其分类为正确、不相关或不存在。统计分析采用单因素方差分析比较不同肿瘤部位的影响因子和引文数。在生成的350篇论文中,有44篇正确,298篇不存在,8篇不相关。所有生成的论文的平均发表年份是2011年,而正确的论文的平均发表年份是2009年。所有生成论文的平均影响因子为38.8,而正确论文的平均影响因子为113.8。在正确和不存在的论文中,发表年份、影响因子和引用数在肿瘤位点之间存在显著差异。我们的研究强调了在放射肿瘤学文献综述中使用人工智能,特别是ChatGPT 3.5的潜在效用和重大局限性。研究结果强调需要验证人工智能输出,制定标准化的质量保证方案,并继续研究人工智能偏差,以确保可靠地融入临床实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Utility of Chatbot Literature Search in Radiation Oncology.

Artificial intelligence and natural language processing tools have shown promise in oncology by assisting with medical literature retrieval and providing patient support. The potential for these technologies to generate inaccurate yet seemingly correct information poses significant challenges. This study evaluates the effectiveness, benefits, and limitations of ChatGPT for clinical use in conducting literature reviews of radiation oncology treatments. This cross-sectional study used ChatGPT version 3.5 to generate literature searches on radiotherapy options for seven tumor sites, with prompts issued five times per site to generate up to 50 publications per tumor type. The publications were verified using the Scopus database and categorized as correct, irrelevant, or non-existent. Statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA compared the impact factors and citation counts across different tumor sites. Among the 350 publications generated, there were 44 correct, 298 non-existent, and 8 irrelevant papers. The average publication year of all generated papers was 2011, compared to 2009 for the correct papers. The average impact factor of all generated papers was 38.8, compared to 113.8 for the correct papers. There were significant differences in the publication year, impact factor, and citation counts between tumor sites for both correct and non-existent papers. Our study highlights both the potential utility and significant limitations of using AI, specifically ChatGPT 3.5, in radiation oncology literature reviews. The findings emphasize the need for verification of AI outputs, development of standardized quality assurance protocols, and continued research into AI biases to ensure reliable integration into 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
Journal of Cancer Education
Journal of Cancer Education 医学-医学:信息
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
122
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues. Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care. We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts. Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited. Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants. Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.
×
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