ChatGPT Use Among Pediatric Health Care Providers: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The public launch of OpenAI's ChatGPT platform generated immediate interest in the use of large language models (LLMs). Health care institutions are now grappling with establishing policies and guidelines for the use of these technologies, yet little is known about how health care providers view LLMs in medical settings. Moreover, there are no studies assessing how pediatric providers are adopting these readily accessible tools. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine how pediatric providers are currently using LLMs in their work as well as their interest in using a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant version of ChatGPT in the future. METHODS: A survey instrument consisting of structured and unstructured questions was iteratively developed by a team of informaticians from various pediatric specialties. The survey was sent via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to all Boston Children's Hospital pediatric providers. Participation was voluntary and uncompensated, and all survey responses were anonymous. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 390 pediatric providers. Approximately 50% (197/390) of respondents had used an LLM; of these, almost 75% (142/197) were already using an LLM for nonclinical work and 27% (52/195) for clinical work. Providers detailed the various ways they are currently using an LLM in their clinical and nonclinical work. Only 29% (n=105) of 362 respondents indicated that ChatGPT should be used for patient care in its present state; however, 73.8% (273/368) reported they would use a HIPAA-compliant version of ChatGPT if one were available. Providers' proposed future uses of LLMs in health care are described. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant concerns and barriers to LLM use in health care, pediatric providers are already using LLMs at work. This study will give policy makers needed information about how providers are using LLMs clinically.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".