322 - Role of Large Language Models in Urology: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Hypothesis / aims of study Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated transformative potential, with promising insights that could potentially enhance clinical practice. Their application in overall healthcare practices is increasingly noted, but their cumulative usage in the field of urology is less explored. Our study aimed to systematically review the current evidence on the usage of LLMs in urology and perform a quantitative analysis of comparable studies. Study design, materials and methods We searched electronic databases namely, Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus to include studies involving urological data or patients in which LLMs were utilized in clinical management or other relevant applications. The studies were grouped based on the application of the LLM that was being studied as: 1) Answering FAQs, 2) Patient Information Materials, 3) Clinical Practice, 4) Medical examination and 5) Other applications. The quality assessment was done utilising the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results A total of 814 articles were found, and after the removal of duplicates and screening of the articles, 39 studies were included in our review. Various applications of LLMs in different domains were listed, and details regarding the training, outcomes, and limitations were studied. ChatGPT was the most commonly studied LLM. The pooled accuracy of the output of various LLMs on various medical examinations was found to be 63.24 (CI 53.69 – 72.72), and a forest plot was constructed. Studies analysing the output of LLMs in answering frequently asked questions reported an accuracy of 67.08% to 100%, with ChatGPT – 4 outperforming ChatGPT – 3.5. Interpretation of results The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis underscore the growing role of LLMs in urology, highlighting their potential to enhance clinical practice across diverse applications. The pooled accuracy of 63.24% for LLM performance on medical examinations reflects moderate reliability, with variability likely influenced by differences in training data, model architecture, and evaluation methods. Notably, ChatGPT emerged as the most frequently studied LLM, with its latest version (ChatGPT-4) demonstrating superior accuracy (67.08% to 100%) in answering frequently asked questions compared to its predecessor, ChatGPT-3.5. This suggests that advancements in LLM iterations can significantly improve performance, particularly in patient-facing tasks. However, the results also reveal a lack of standardization in evaluation metrics and methodologies across studies, which poses challenges for consistent benchmarking and integration into clinical workflows. Concluding message LLMs' applications are diverse and have augmented urological practice. However, uniform evaluation methods and performance metrics for assessing the output generated for various purposes are needed to further streamline the use and synchronous incorporation of LLM in regular urological practice. Download: Download high-res image (104KB) Download: Download full-size image Figure 1 . Funding None Clinical Trial No Subjects None
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 | 0,052 | 0,107 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,036 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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 ».