RESUMO
Background: This study investigated the efficacy of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 in assessing drug safety for patients with kidney diseases, comparing their performance to Micromedex, a well-established drug information source. Despite the perception of non-prescription medications and supplements as safe, risks exist, especially for those with kidney issues. The study's goal was to evaluate ChatGPT's versions for their potential in clinical decision-making regarding kidney disease patients. Method: The research involved analyzing 124 common non-prescription medications and supplements using ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 with queries about their safety for people with kidney disease. The AI responses were categorized as "generally safe," "potentially harmful," or "unknown toxicity." Simultaneously, these medications and supplements were assessed in Micromedex using similar categories, allowing for a comparison of the concordance between the two resources. Results: Micromedex identified 85 (68.5%) medications as generally safe, 35 (28.2%) as potentially harmful, and 4 (3.2%) of unknown toxicity. ChatGPT-3.5 identified 89 (71.8%) as generally safe, 11 (8.9%) as potentially harmful, and 24 (19.3%) of unknown toxicity. GPT-4 identified 82 (66.1%) as generally safe, 29 (23.4%) as potentially harmful, and 13 (10.5%) of unknown toxicity. The overall agreement between Micromedex and ChatGPT-3.5 was 64.5% and ChatGPT-4 demonstrated a higher agreement at 81.4%. Notably, ChatGPT-3.5's suboptimal performance was primarily influenced by a lower concordance rate among supplements, standing at 60.3%. This discrepancy could be attributed to the limited data on supplements within ChatGPT-3.5, with supplements constituting 80% of medications identified as unknown. Conclusion: ChatGPT's capabilities in evaluating the safety of non-prescription drugs and supplements for kidney disease patients are modest compared to established drug information resources. Neither ChatGPT-3.5 nor ChatGPT-4 can be currently recommended as reliable drug information sources for this demographic. The results highlight the need for further improvements in the model's accuracy and reliability in the medical domain.
RESUMO
The accurate interpretation of CRRT machine alarms is crucial in the intensive care setting. ChatGPT, with its advanced natural language processing capabilities, has emerged as a tool that is evolving and advancing in its ability to assist with healthcare information. This study is designed to evaluate the accuracy of the ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 models in addressing queries related to CRRT alarm troubleshooting. This study consisted of two rounds of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 responses to address 50 CRRT machine alarm questions that were carefully selected by two nephrologists in intensive care. Accuracy was determined by comparing the model responses to predetermined answer keys provided by critical care nephrologists, and consistency was determined by comparing outcomes across the two rounds. The accuracy rate of ChatGPT-3.5 was 86% and 84%, while the accuracy rate of ChatGPT-4 was 90% and 94% in the first and second rounds, respectively. The agreement between the first and second rounds of ChatGPT-3.5 was 84% with a Kappa statistic of 0.78, while the agreement of ChatGPT-4 was 92% with a Kappa statistic of 0.88. Although ChatGPT-4 tended to provide more accurate and consistent responses than ChatGPT-3.5, there was no statistically significant difference between the accuracy and agreement rate between ChatGPT-3.5 and -4. ChatGPT-4 had higher accuracy and consistency but did not achieve statistical significance. While these findings are encouraging, there is still potential for further development to achieve even greater reliability. This advancement is essential for ensuring the highest-quality patient care and safety standards in managing CRRT machine-related issues.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: ChatGPT is a novel tool that allows people to engage in conversations with an advanced machine learning model. ChatGPT's performance in the US Medical Licensing Examination is comparable with a successful candidate's performance. However, its performance in the nephrology field remains undetermined. This study assessed ChatGPT's capabilities in answering nephrology test questions. METHODS: Questions sourced from Nephrology Self-Assessment Program and Kidney Self-Assessment Program were used, each with multiple-choice single-answer questions. Questions containing visual elements were excluded. Each question bank was run twice using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Total accuracy rate, defined as the percentage of correct answers obtained by ChatGPT in either the first or second run, and the total concordance, defined as the percentage of identical answers provided by ChatGPT during both runs, regardless of their correctness, were used to assess its performance. RESULTS: A comprehensive assessment was conducted on a set of 975 questions, comprising 508 questions from Nephrology Self-Assessment Program and 467 from Kidney Self-Assessment Program. GPT-3.5 resulted in a total accuracy rate of 51%. Notably, the employment of Nephrology Self-Assessment Program yielded a higher accuracy rate compared with Kidney Self-Assessment Program (58% versus 44%; P < 0.001). The total concordance rate across all questions was 78%, with correct answers exhibiting a higher concordance rate (84%) compared with incorrect answers (73%) ( P < 0.001). When examining various nephrology subfields, the total accuracy rates were relatively lower in electrolyte and acid-base disorder, glomerular disease, and kidney-related bone and stone disorders. The total accuracy rate of GPT-4's response was 74%, higher than GPT-3.5 ( P < 0.001) but remained below the passing threshold and average scores of nephrology examinees (77%). CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT exhibited limitations regarding accuracy and repeatability when addressing nephrology-related questions. Variations in performance were evident across various subfields.