#3420 Application of ChatGPT 4o to implement local registries in low-resourced countries. A proof of concept for the Jamaican Registry Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims Middle-income and low-income countries face substantial challenges to build local registries for chronic and end-stage kidney disease (CKD/ESKD) patients that allow to characterize disease and build evidence to inform policy makers. The primary challenges stem from limited access to technology and inefficient communication systems. As a result, the use of printed forms to collect data via handwritten registries remains a more feasible option in healthcare settings that lack advanced technological infrastructure. Conversely, mobile and cellphone technologies are increasingly being leveraged to address communication gaps and facilitate clinical research in healthcare settings. In a proof-of-concept study, we aimed to use ChatGPT to extract patient information from pre-designed hand-written medical record forms and to transfer the data to a database. Method We used a pre-designed patient information form from the Nephrology Department at Grenada General Hospital in Grenada and the University of West Indies Mona in Jamaica. The form was created to establish a local, national, and international CKD Caribbean registry. Each form comprised 28 data fields, such as name, address, diagnosis, etc. We distributed the form to healthy volunteers and requested them to fill out the form in English with hand-written sham data. Photographs of the filled-out forms were then imported into ChatGPT, version 4o, and a request for data extraction was prompted. The ChatGPT generated data extracts were then exported into an Excel spreadsheet. To assess the accuracy of the process, the extracted data were then compared with the original hand-written data. We assessed the global discrepancy rate between original form and Excel data base entry. In addition, we categorized discrepancies by four groups: a) Letters, b) Numbers, c) Special characters/symbols, and d) Checkbox discrepancies. Descriptive analyses were done with SAS On Demand for Academics 3.1.0. Results Twenty-two forms with a total of 616 entries (= 22 x 28 data fields) were evaluated. Discrepancies between original and abstracted data occurred in 48 (8%) instances (Fig. 1). The median discrepancy count per form was 2 (interquartile range: 2). Most frequent discrepancies occurred with numbers (54% of all discrepancies), followed by checkbox discrepancies (23%; Fig. 2). Conclusion The extraction of hand-written medical data from pre-defined medical record forms using ChatGPT showed a satisfactory performance in English language with a median error rate of 8%. Human error research indicates spreadsheet cell entry error rates between 1% and 5%. However, these studies did not consider handwritten source data but entry of printed data into spreadsheets (see panko.com for extensive literature and discussion). Additionally, performance may vary according to language and alphabet used. Efforts to improve the writing of numbers by hand and attention to detail when checking boxes are important steps to improve accuracy. Adapting the available resources for the establishment of local registries in low-resourced countries is key for collecting evidence on kidney disease in disadvantaged areas.
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 | 0.032 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".