MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392193191 · doi:10.1186/s13000-024-01464-7

Challenges and barriers of using large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT for diagnostic medicine with a focus on digital pathology – a recent scoping review

2024· article· en· W4392193191 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic Pathology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityContext (archaeology)MedicineHealth careAutonomyPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The integration of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT in diagnostic medicine, with a focus on digital pathology, has garnered significant attention. However, understanding the challenges and barriers associated with the use of LLMs in this context is crucial for their successful implementation. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to explore the challenges and barriers of using LLMs, in diagnostic medicine with a focus on digital pathology. A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases, including PubMed and Google Scholar, for relevant articles published within the past four years. The selected articles were critically analyzed to identify and summarize the challenges and barriers reported in the literature. RESULTS: The scoping review identified several challenges and barriers associated with the use of LLMs in diagnostic medicine. These included limitations in contextual understanding and interpretability, biases in training data, ethical considerations, impact on healthcare professionals, and regulatory concerns. Contextual understanding and interpretability challenges arise due to the lack of true understanding of medical concepts and lack of these models being explicitly trained on medical records selected by trained professionals, and the black-box nature of LLMs. Biases in training data pose a risk of perpetuating disparities and inaccuracies in diagnoses. Ethical considerations include patient privacy, data security, and responsible AI use. The integration of LLMs may impact healthcare professionals' autonomy and decision-making abilities. Regulatory concerns surround the need for guidelines and frameworks to ensure safe and ethical implementation. CONCLUSION: The scoping review highlights the challenges and barriers of using LLMs in diagnostic medicine with a focus on digital pathology. Understanding these challenges is essential for addressing the limitations and developing strategies to overcome barriers. It is critical for health professionals to be involved in the selection of data and fine tuning of the models. Further research, validation, and collaboration between AI developers, healthcare professionals, and regulatory bodies are necessary to ensure the responsible and effective integration of LLMs in diagnostic medicine.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it