Optimizing ChatGPT’s Interpretation and Reporting of Delirium Assessment Outcomes: Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, have shown promising potential in supporting medical education and clinical decision-making, given their vast knowledge base and natural language processing capabilities. As a general purpose AI system, ChatGPT can complete a wide range of tasks, including differential diagnosis without additional training. However, the specific application of ChatGPT in learning and applying a series of specialized, context-specific tasks mimicking the workflow of a human assessor, such as administering a standardized assessment questionnaire, followed by inputting assessment results in a standardized form, and interpretating assessment results strictly following credible, published scoring criteria, have not been thoroughly studied. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory study aims to evaluate and optimize ChatGPT's capabilities in administering and interpreting the Sour Seven Questionnaire, an informant-based delirium assessment tool. Specifically, the objectives were to train ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 to understand and correctly apply the Sour Seven Questionnaire to clinical vignettes using prompt engineering, assess the performance of these AI models in identifying and scoring delirium symptoms against scores from human experts, and refine and enhance the models' interpretation and reporting accuracy through iterative prompt optimization. METHODS: We used prompt engineering to train ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 models on the Sour Seven Questionnaire, a tool for assessing delirium through caregiver input. Prompt engineering is a methodology used to enhance the AI's processing of inputs by meticulously structuring the prompts to improve accuracy and consistency in outputs. In this study, prompt engineering involved creating specific, structured commands that guided the AI models in understanding and applying the assessment tool's criteria accurately to clinical vignettes. This approach also included designing prompts to explicitly instruct the AI on how to format its responses, ensuring they were consistent with clinical documentation standards. RESULTS: Both ChatGPT models demonstrated promising proficiency in applying the Sour Seven Questionnaire to the vignettes, despite initial inconsistencies and errors. Performance notably improved through iterative prompt engineering, enhancing the models' capacity to detect delirium symptoms and assign scores. Prompt optimizations included adjusting the scoring methodology to accept only definitive "Yes" or "No" responses, revising the evaluation prompt to mandate responses in a tabular format, and guiding the models to adhere to the 2 recommended actions specified in the Sour Seven Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide preliminary evidence supporting the potential utility of AI models such as ChatGPT in administering standardized clinical assessment tools. The results highlight the significance of context-specific training and prompt engineering in harnessing the full potential of these AI models for health care applications. Despite the encouraging results, broader generalizability and further validation in real-world settings warrant additional research.
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 | 0.033 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".