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 OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Ullah, Anil V. Parwani, Mirza Mansoor Baig, Rajendra Singh

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.300
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.300
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations257
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnostic PathologySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207