微软副驾驶人工智能在慢性伤口评估中的诊断准确性比较研究。

IF 1.5 Q3 SURGERY
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open Pub Date : 2025-06-12 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1097/GOX.0000000000006871
Kirollos Tadrousse, Catherine A Cash, Madhulika R Kastury, Noelle Thompson, Richard Simman
{"title":"微软副驾驶人工智能在慢性伤口评估中的诊断准确性比较研究。","authors":"Kirollos Tadrousse, Catherine A Cash, Madhulika R Kastury, Noelle Thompson, Richard Simman","doi":"10.1097/GOX.0000000000006871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic wounds affect approximately 2.5% of the US population and can cause severe complications if not identified and treated promptly. Artificial intelligence tools such as Microsoft's Copilot have the potential to expedite diagnosis, but their clinical diagnostic accuracy remains underexplored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten chronic wound cases were selected from the publicly available database of the Silesian University of Technology. Images and demographic data were entered into Copilot, which generated the top 3 differential diagnoses for each case. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using a predefined scoring system. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, bootstrapping, the Fisher-Pitman permutation test, Cohen kappa, and Fisher exact test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Copilot correctly identified the primary diagnosis in 30% of cases and included the correct diagnosis within its top 3 differentials in 70% of cases. The mean diagnostic score was 1.7 (median: 2, SD: 1.25, variance: 1.57). The Wilcoxon test indicated no significant deviation from the median reference value (<i>P</i> = 0.6364), whereas bootstrapping yielded a 95% confidence interval of 1-4. The permutation test demonstrated a significant difference from the null hypothesis (<i>P</i> = 0.017), and the Cohen kappa revealed perfect agreement (kappa = 1, <i>P</i> = 0.00157). The Fisher exact test showed no significant association between primary and top 3 diagnostic accuracy (<i>P</i> = 0.20).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Microsoft Copilot demonstrated limited diagnostic accuracy in chronic wound assessment, underscoring the need for cautious integration into clinical workflows. Broader datasets and more rigorous validation are crucial for enhancing artificial intelligence-supported diagnostics in wound care.</p>","PeriodicalId":20149,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","volume":"13 6","pages":"e6871"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12160731/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Accuracy of Microsoft's Copilot Artificial Intelligence in Chronic Wound Assessment: A Comparative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Kirollos Tadrousse, Catherine A Cash, Madhulika R Kastury, Noelle Thompson, Richard Simman\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/GOX.0000000000006871\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic wounds affect approximately 2.5% of the US population and can cause severe complications if not identified and treated promptly. Artificial intelligence tools such as Microsoft's Copilot have the potential to expedite diagnosis, but their clinical diagnostic accuracy remains underexplored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten chronic wound cases were selected from the publicly available database of the Silesian University of Technology. Images and demographic data were entered into Copilot, which generated the top 3 differential diagnoses for each case. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using a predefined scoring system. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, bootstrapping, the Fisher-Pitman permutation test, Cohen kappa, and Fisher exact test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Copilot correctly identified the primary diagnosis in 30% of cases and included the correct diagnosis within its top 3 differentials in 70% of cases. The mean diagnostic score was 1.7 (median: 2, SD: 1.25, variance: 1.57). The Wilcoxon test indicated no significant deviation from the median reference value (<i>P</i> = 0.6364), whereas bootstrapping yielded a 95% confidence interval of 1-4. The permutation test demonstrated a significant difference from the null hypothesis (<i>P</i> = 0.017), and the Cohen kappa revealed perfect agreement (kappa = 1, <i>P</i> = 0.00157). The Fisher exact test showed no significant association between primary and top 3 diagnostic accuracy (<i>P</i> = 0.20).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Microsoft Copilot demonstrated limited diagnostic accuracy in chronic wound assessment, underscoring the need for cautious integration into clinical workflows. Broader datasets and more rigorous validation are crucial for enhancing artificial intelligence-supported diagnostics in wound care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open\",\"volume\":\"13 6\",\"pages\":\"e6871\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12160731/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006871\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006871","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:慢性伤口影响大约2.5%的美国人口,如果不及时发现和治疗,可能导致严重的并发症。微软的Copilot等人工智能工具有可能加快诊断速度,但它们的临床诊断准确性仍有待探索。方法:从西里西亚理工大学公开数据库中选择10例慢性伤口病例。将图像和人口统计数据输入到Copilot中,为每个病例生成前3个鉴别诊断。使用预定义的评分系统评估诊断准确性。统计分析包括描述性统计、Wilcoxon sign -rank检验、bootstrapping、Fisher- pitman排列检验、Cohen kappa检验和Fisher精确检验。结果:在30%的病例中,Copilot正确识别了初级诊断;在70%的病例中,Copilot将正确诊断纳入了前3个诊断。平均诊断评分为1.7(中位数:2,标准差:1.25,方差:1.57)。Wilcoxon检验显示与中位参考值没有显著偏差(P = 0.6364),而bootstrapping产生的95%置信区间为1-4。排列检验与原假设有显著性差异(P = 0.017), Cohen kappa完全一致(kappa = 1, P = 0.00157)。Fisher精确检验显示初级和前3名诊断准确率之间无显著相关性(P = 0.20)。结论:Microsoft Copilot在慢性伤口评估中显示出有限的诊断准确性,强调需要谨慎地整合到临床工作流程中。更广泛的数据集和更严格的验证对于加强伤口护理中人工智能支持的诊断至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostic Accuracy of Microsoft's Copilot Artificial Intelligence in Chronic Wound Assessment: A Comparative Study.

Background: Chronic wounds affect approximately 2.5% of the US population and can cause severe complications if not identified and treated promptly. Artificial intelligence tools such as Microsoft's Copilot have the potential to expedite diagnosis, but their clinical diagnostic accuracy remains underexplored.

Methods: Ten chronic wound cases were selected from the publicly available database of the Silesian University of Technology. Images and demographic data were entered into Copilot, which generated the top 3 differential diagnoses for each case. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using a predefined scoring system. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, bootstrapping, the Fisher-Pitman permutation test, Cohen kappa, and Fisher exact test.

Results: Copilot correctly identified the primary diagnosis in 30% of cases and included the correct diagnosis within its top 3 differentials in 70% of cases. The mean diagnostic score was 1.7 (median: 2, SD: 1.25, variance: 1.57). The Wilcoxon test indicated no significant deviation from the median reference value (P = 0.6364), whereas bootstrapping yielded a 95% confidence interval of 1-4. The permutation test demonstrated a significant difference from the null hypothesis (P = 0.017), and the Cohen kappa revealed perfect agreement (kappa = 1, P = 0.00157). The Fisher exact test showed no significant association between primary and top 3 diagnostic accuracy (P = 0.20).

Conclusions: Microsoft Copilot demonstrated limited diagnostic accuracy in chronic wound assessment, underscoring the need for cautious integration into clinical workflows. Broader datasets and more rigorous validation are crucial for enhancing artificial intelligence-supported diagnostics in wound care.

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
2.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
1584
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open is an open access, peer reviewed, international journal focusing on global plastic and reconstructive surgery.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open publishes on all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including basic science/experimental studies pertinent to the field and also clinical articles on such topics as: breast reconstruction, head and neck surgery, pediatric and craniofacial surgery, hand and microsurgery, wound healing, and cosmetic and aesthetic surgery. Clinical studies, experimental articles, ideas and innovations, and techniques and case reports are all welcome article types. Manuscript submission is open to all surgeons, researchers, and other health care providers world-wide who wish to communicate their research results on topics related to plastic and reconstructive surgery. Furthermore, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open, a complimentary journal to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, provides an open access venue for the publication of those research studies sponsored by private and public funding agencies that require open access publication of study results. Its mission is to disseminate high quality, peer reviewed research in plastic and reconstructive surgery to the widest possible global audience, through an open access platform. As an open access journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open offers its content for free to any viewer. Authors of articles retain their copyright to the materials published. Additionally, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open provides rapid review and publication of accepted papers.
×
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