Comprehensive review of virtual assistants in vascular surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual assistants, broadly defined as digital services designed to simulate human conversation and provide personalized responses based on user input, have the potential to improve health care by supporting clinicians and patients in terms of diagnosing and managing disease, performing administrative tasks, and supporting medical research and education. These tasks are particularly helpful in vascular surgery, where the clinical and administrative burden is high due to the rising incidence of vascular disease, the medical complexity of the patients, and the potential for innovation and care advancement. The rapid development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing techniques have facilitated the training of large language models, such as GPT-4 (OpenAI), which can support the development of increasingly powerful virtual assistants. These tools may support holistic, multidisciplinary, and high-quality vascular care delivery throughout the pre-, intra-, and postoperative stages. Importantly, it is critical to consider the design, safety, and challenges related to virtual assistants, including data security, ethical, and equity concerns. By combining the perspectives of patients, clinicians, data scientists, and other stakeholders when developing, implementing, and monitoring virtual assistants, there is potential to harness the power of this technology to care for vascular surgery patients more effectively. In this comprehensive review article, we introduce the concept of virtual assistants, describe potential applications of virtual assistants in vascular surgery for clinicians and patients, highlight the benefits and drawbacks of large language models, such as GPT-4, and discuss considerations around the design, safety, and challenges associated with virtual assistants in vascular surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".