人工智能应用与麻醉医师麻醉方法选择的比较。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Enes Çelik, Mehmet Ali Turgut, Mesut Aydoğan, Metin Kılınç, İzzettin Toktaş, Hakan Akelma
{"title":"人工智能应用与麻醉医师麻醉方法选择的比较。","authors":"Enes Çelik, Mehmet Ali Turgut, Mesut Aydoğan, Metin Kılınç, İzzettin Toktaş, Hakan Akelma","doi":"10.1186/s12871-024-02882-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In medicine, Artificial intelligence has begun to be utilized in nearly every domain, from medical devices to the interpretation of imaging studies. There is still a need for more experience and more studies related to the comprehensive use of AI in medicine. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the ability of AI to make decisions regarding anesthesia methods and to compare the most popular AI programs from this perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included orthopedic patients over 18 years of age scheduled for limb surgery within a 1-month period. Patients classified as ASA I-III who were evaluated in the anesthesia clinic during the preoperative period were included in the study. The anesthesia method preferred by the anesthesiologist during the operation and the patient's demographic data, comorbidities, medications, and surgical history were recorded. The obtained patient data were discussed as if presenting a patient scenario using the free versions of the ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini applications by a different anesthesiologist who did not perform the operation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over the course of 1 month, a total of 72 patients were enrolled in the study. It was observed that both the anesthesia specialists and the Gemini application chose spinal anesthesia for the same patient in 68.5% of cases. This rate was higher compared to the other AI applications. For patients taking medication, it was observed that the Gemini application presented choices that were highly compatible (85.7%) with the anesthesiologists' preferences.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AI cannot fully master the guidelines and exceptional and specific cases that arrive in the course of medical treatment. Thus, we believe that AI can serve as a valuable assistant rather than replacing doctors.</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"25 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11697632/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of AI applications and anesthesiologist's anesthesia method choices.\",\"authors\":\"Enes Çelik, Mehmet Ali Turgut, Mesut Aydoğan, Metin Kılınç, İzzettin Toktaş, Hakan Akelma\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12871-024-02882-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In medicine, Artificial intelligence has begun to be utilized in nearly every domain, from medical devices to the interpretation of imaging studies. There is still a need for more experience and more studies related to the comprehensive use of AI in medicine. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the ability of AI to make decisions regarding anesthesia methods and to compare the most popular AI programs from this perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included orthopedic patients over 18 years of age scheduled for limb surgery within a 1-month period. Patients classified as ASA I-III who were evaluated in the anesthesia clinic during the preoperative period were included in the study. The anesthesia method preferred by the anesthesiologist during the operation and the patient's demographic data, comorbidities, medications, and surgical history were recorded. The obtained patient data were discussed as if presenting a patient scenario using the free versions of the ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini applications by a different anesthesiologist who did not perform the operation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over the course of 1 month, a total of 72 patients were enrolled in the study. It was observed that both the anesthesia specialists and the Gemini application chose spinal anesthesia for the same patient in 68.5% of cases. This rate was higher compared to the other AI applications. For patients taking medication, it was observed that the Gemini application presented choices that were highly compatible (85.7%) with the anesthesiologists' preferences.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AI cannot fully master the guidelines and exceptional and specific cases that arrive in the course of medical treatment. Thus, we believe that AI can serve as a valuable assistant rather than replacing doctors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11697632/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02882-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02882-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在医学领域,人工智能已经开始应用于几乎每个领域,从医疗设备到成像研究的解释。人工智能在医学上的综合应用还需要更多的经验和研究。本研究的目的是评估人工智能在麻醉方法方面的决策能力,并从这个角度比较最流行的人工智能程序。方法:研究对象为年龄在18岁以上,计划在1个月内进行肢体手术的骨科患者。术前在麻醉诊所评估的ASA I-III级患者纳入研究。记录麻醉医师在手术过程中选择的麻醉方式以及患者的人口学资料、合并症、用药情况和手术史。对获得的患者数据进行了讨论,就像使用ChatGPT、Copilot和Gemini应用程序的免费版本呈现患者场景一样,这些应用程序由不同的麻醉师进行,而这些麻醉师并没有进行手术。结果:在1个月的时间里,共有72例患者入组研究。在68.5%的病例中,麻醉专家和Gemini应用程序都选择了脊柱麻醉。与其他人工智能应用程序相比,这一比率更高。对于服用药物的患者,我们观察到Gemini应用程序提供的选择与麻醉师的偏好高度兼容(85.7%)。结论:人工智能不能完全掌握医疗过程中出现的指导方针和特殊病例。因此,我们相信人工智能可以作为一个有价值的助手,而不是取代医生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of AI applications and anesthesiologist's anesthesia method choices.

Background: In medicine, Artificial intelligence has begun to be utilized in nearly every domain, from medical devices to the interpretation of imaging studies. There is still a need for more experience and more studies related to the comprehensive use of AI in medicine. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the ability of AI to make decisions regarding anesthesia methods and to compare the most popular AI programs from this perspective.

Methods: The study included orthopedic patients over 18 years of age scheduled for limb surgery within a 1-month period. Patients classified as ASA I-III who were evaluated in the anesthesia clinic during the preoperative period were included in the study. The anesthesia method preferred by the anesthesiologist during the operation and the patient's demographic data, comorbidities, medications, and surgical history were recorded. The obtained patient data were discussed as if presenting a patient scenario using the free versions of the ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini applications by a different anesthesiologist who did not perform the operation.

Results: Over the course of 1 month, a total of 72 patients were enrolled in the study. It was observed that both the anesthesia specialists and the Gemini application chose spinal anesthesia for the same patient in 68.5% of cases. This rate was higher compared to the other AI applications. For patients taking medication, it was observed that the Gemini application presented choices that were highly compatible (85.7%) with the anesthesiologists' preferences.

Conclusion: AI cannot fully master the guidelines and exceptional and specific cases that arrive in the course of medical treatment. Thus, we believe that AI can serve as a valuable assistant rather than replacing doctors.

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
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
×
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