MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405813096 · doi:10.1111/epi.18215

Can the large language model <scp>ChatGPT</scp> ‐4omni predict outcomes in adult patients with status epilepticus?

2024· article· en· W4405813096 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Simon A. Amacher, Sira M. Baumann, Sebastian Berger, Armon Arpagaus, Simon B. Egli, Pascale Grzonka, Paulina S. C. Kliem, Sabina Hunziker, Urs Fisch, Caroline E. Gebhard, Raoul Sutter

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungMach-Gaensslen Foundation of CanadaUniversitätsspital BaselUniversität Basel
KeywordsStatus epilepticusMedicineNeuroscienceEpilepsyPsychologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Large language models (LLMs) have recently gained attention for clinical decision-making and diagnosis. This study evaluates the performance of the recently updated LLM Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer-4omni (ChatGPT-4o) in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with status epilepticus and compares its prognostic performance to the Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS). METHODS: This retrospective single-center cohort study was performed at the University Hospital Basel (tertiary academic medical center) from January 2005 to December 2022. It included consecutive adult patients (≥18 years of age) with a diagnosis of status epilepticus. The primary outcome was survival at hospital discharge, and the secondary outcome was return to premorbid neurological function at hospital discharge. The performance characteristics of ChatGPT4-o (sensitivity, specificity, Youden Index) were evaluated and compared to those of the STESS. RESULTS: Of 760 patients, 689 patients (90.7%) survived to discharge, and 317 survivors (41.7%) regained their premorbid neurological function at discharge. ChatGPT-4o predicted survival in 567 of 760 patients (74.6%), of which 45 died. ChatGPT-4o predicted death in 193 of 760 patients (25.4%), of which 167 survived, resulting in a sensitivity of 75.8% and a specificity of 36.6% (Youden Index 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0-.28) for predicting survival. ChatGPT-4o predicted return to premorbid neurologic function in 249 of 760 patients (32.8%), of which 112 did not return to their premorbid neurological function. ChatGPT-4o predicted no return to premorbid function in 511 of 760 patients (67.2%), of which 180 returned to their premorbid function, resulting in a sensitivity of 43.2% and a specificity of 74.7% (Youden Index .12, 95% CI .08-.28) for predicting return to premorbid neurological function. There was no difference in the prognostic performance of ChatGPT-4o and the STESS. A second round of prompting did not increase the predictive performance of ChatGPT-4o. SIGNIFICANCE: ChatGPT-4o unreliably predicts outcomes in patients with status epilepticus. Clinicians should refrain from using ChatGPT-4o for prognostication in these patients.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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