ChatGPT in healthcare: A taxonomy and systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent release of ChatGPT, a chat bot research project/product of natural language processing (NLP) by OpenAI, stirs up a sensation among both the general public and medical professionals, amassing a phenomenally large user base in a short time. This is a typical example of the 'productization' of cutting-edge technologies, which allows the general public without a technical background to gain firsthand experience in artificial intelligence (AI), similar to the AI hype created by AlphaGo (DeepMind Technologies, UK) and self-driving cars (Google, Tesla, etc.). However, it is crucial, especially for healthcare researchers, to remain prudent amidst the hype. This work provides a systematic review of existing publications on the use of ChatGPT in healthcare, elucidating the 'status quo' of ChatGPT in medical applications, for general readers, healthcare professionals as well as NLP scientists. The large biomedical literature database PubMed is used to retrieve published works on this topic using the keyword 'ChatGPT'. An inclusion criterion and a taxonomy are further proposed to filter the search results and categorize the selected publications, respectively. It is found through the review that the current release of ChatGPT has achieved only moderate or 'passing' performance in a variety of tests, and is unreliable for actual clinical deployment, since it is not intended for clinical applications by design. We conclude that specialized NLP models trained on (bio)medical datasets still represent the right direction to pursue for critical clinical applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".