A Multidisciplinary Assessment of ChatGPT’s Knowledge of Amyloidosis: Observational Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Amyloidosis, a rare multisystem condition, often requires complex, multidisciplinary care. Its low prevalence underscores the importance of efforts to ensure the availability of high-quality patient education materials for better outcomes. ChatGPT (OpenAI) is a large language model powered by artificial intelligence that offers a potential avenue for disseminating accurate, reliable, and accessible educational resources for both patients and providers. Its user-friendly interface, engaging conversational responses, and the capability for users to ask follow-up questions make it a promising future tool in delivering accurate and tailored information to patients. OBJECTIVE: We performed a multidisciplinary assessment of the accuracy, reproducibility, and readability of ChatGPT in answering questions related to amyloidosis. METHODS: In total, 98 amyloidosis questions related to cardiology, gastroenterology, and neurology were curated from medical societies, institutions, and amyloidosis Facebook support groups and inputted into ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4. Cardiology- and gastroenterology-related responses were independently graded by a board-certified cardiologist and gastroenterologist, respectively, who specialize in amyloidosis. These 2 reviewers (RG and DCK) also graded general questions for which disagreements were resolved with discussion. Neurology-related responses were graded by a board-certified neurologist (AAH) who specializes in amyloidosis. Reviewers used the following grading scale: (1) comprehensive, (2) correct but inadequate, (3) some correct and some incorrect, and (4) completely incorrect. Questions were stratified by categories for further analysis. Reproducibility was assessed by inputting each question twice into each model. The readability of ChatGPT-4 responses was also evaluated using the Textstat library in Python (Python Software Foundation) and the Textstat readability package in R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). RESULTS: ChatGPT-4 (n=98) provided 93 (95%) responses with accurate information, and 82 (84%) were comprehensive. ChatGPT-3.5 (n=83) provided 74 (89%) responses with accurate information, and 66 (79%) were comprehensive. When examined by question category, ChatGTP-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 provided 53 (95%) and 48 (86%) comprehensive responses, respectively, to "general questions" (n=56). When examined by subject, ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 performed best in response to cardiology questions (n=12) with both models producing 10 (83%) comprehensive responses. For gastroenterology (n=15), ChatGPT-4 received comprehensive grades for 9 (60%) responses, and ChatGPT-3.5 provided 8 (53%) responses. Overall, 96 of 98 (98%) responses for ChatGPT-4 and 73 of 83 (88%) for ChatGPT-3.5 were reproducible. The readability of ChatGPT-4's responses ranged from 10th to beyond graduate US grade levels with an average of 15.5 (SD 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Large language models are a promising tool for accurate and reliable health information for patients living with amyloidosis. However, ChatGPT's responses exceeded the American Medical Association's recommended fifth- to sixth-grade reading level. Future studies focusing on improving response accuracy and readability are warranted. Prior to widespread implementation, the technology's limitations and ethical implications must be further explored to ensure patient safety and equitable implementation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».