#3420 Application of ChatGPT 4o to implement local registries in low-resourced countries. A proof of concept for the Jamaican Registry Initiative
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background and Aims Middle-income and low-income countries face substantial challenges to build local registries for chronic and end-stage kidney disease (CKD/ESKD) patients that allow to characterize disease and build evidence to inform policy makers. The primary challenges stem from limited access to technology and inefficient communication systems. As a result, the use of printed forms to collect data via handwritten registries remains a more feasible option in healthcare settings that lack advanced technological infrastructure. Conversely, mobile and cellphone technologies are increasingly being leveraged to address communication gaps and facilitate clinical research in healthcare settings. In a proof-of-concept study, we aimed to use ChatGPT to extract patient information from pre-designed hand-written medical record forms and to transfer the data to a database. Method We used a pre-designed patient information form from the Nephrology Department at Grenada General Hospital in Grenada and the University of West Indies Mona in Jamaica. The form was created to establish a local, national, and international CKD Caribbean registry. Each form comprised 28 data fields, such as name, address, diagnosis, etc. We distributed the form to healthy volunteers and requested them to fill out the form in English with hand-written sham data. Photographs of the filled-out forms were then imported into ChatGPT, version 4o, and a request for data extraction was prompted. The ChatGPT generated data extracts were then exported into an Excel spreadsheet. To assess the accuracy of the process, the extracted data were then compared with the original hand-written data. We assessed the global discrepancy rate between original form and Excel data base entry. In addition, we categorized discrepancies by four groups: a) Letters, b) Numbers, c) Special characters/symbols, and d) Checkbox discrepancies. Descriptive analyses were done with SAS On Demand for Academics 3.1.0. Results Twenty-two forms with a total of 616 entries (= 22 x 28 data fields) were evaluated. Discrepancies between original and abstracted data occurred in 48 (8%) instances (Fig. 1). The median discrepancy count per form was 2 (interquartile range: 2). Most frequent discrepancies occurred with numbers (54% of all discrepancies), followed by checkbox discrepancies (23%; Fig. 2). Conclusion The extraction of hand-written medical data from pre-defined medical record forms using ChatGPT showed a satisfactory performance in English language with a median error rate of 8%. Human error research indicates spreadsheet cell entry error rates between 1% and 5%. However, these studies did not consider handwritten source data but entry of printed data into spreadsheets (see panko.com for extensive literature and discussion). Additionally, performance may vary according to language and alphabet used. Efforts to improve the writing of numbers by hand and attention to detail when checking boxes are important steps to improve accuracy. Adapting the available resources for the establishment of local registries in low-resourced countries is key for collecting evidence on kidney disease in disadvantaged areas.
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 | 0,032 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,002 |
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 ».