ChatGPT's Performance in Cardiac Arrest and Bradycardia Simulations Using the American Heart Association's Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support Guidelines: Exploratory Study.

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT is the most advanced large language model to date, with prior iterations having passed medical licensing examinations, providing clinical decision support, and improved diagnostics. Although limited, past studies of ChatGPT's performance found that artificial intelligence could pass the American Heart Association's advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS) examinations with modifications. ChatGPT's accuracy has not been studied in more complex clinical scenarios. As heart disease and cardiac arrest remain leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States, finding technologies that help increase adherence to ACLS algorithms, which improves survival outcomes, is critical. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the accuracy of ChatGPT in following ACLS guidelines for bradycardia and cardiac arrest. METHODS: We evaluated the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses to 2 simulations based on the 2020 American Heart Association ACLS guidelines with 3 primary outcomes of interest: the mean individual step accuracy, the accuracy score per simulation attempt, and the accuracy score for each algorithm. For each simulation step, ChatGPT was scored for correctness (1 point) or incorrectness (0 points). Each simulation was conducted 20 times. RESULTS: ChatGPT's median accuracy for each step was 85% (IQR 40%-100%) for cardiac arrest and 30% (IQR 13%-81%) for bradycardia. ChatGPT's median accuracy over 20 simulation attempts for cardiac arrest was 69% (IQR 67%-74%) and for bradycardia was 42% (IQR 33%-50%). We found that ChatGPT's outputs varied despite consistent input, the same actions were persistently missed, repetitive overemphasis hindered guidance, and erroneous medication information was presented. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need for consistent and reliable guidance to prevent potential medical errors and optimize the application of ChatGPT to enhance its reliability and effectiveness in clinical practice.

Associations Between Radiation Oncologist Demographic Factors and Segmentation Similarity Benchmarks: Insights From a Crowd-Sourced Challenge Using Bayesian Estimation.

PURPOSE: The quality of radiotherapy auto-segmentation training data, primarily derived from clinician observers, is of utmost importance. However, the factors influencing the quality of clinician-derived segmentations are poorly understood; our study aims to quantify these factors. METHODS: Organ at risk (OAR) and tumor-related segmentations provided by radiation oncologists from the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology data set were used. Segmentations were derived from five disease sites: breast, sarcoma, head and neck (H&N), gynecologic (GYN), and GI. Segmentation quality was determined on a structure-by-structure basis by comparing the observer segmentations with an expert-derived consensus, which served as a reference standard benchmark. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was primarily used as a metric for the comparisons. DSC was stratified into binary groups on the basis of structure-specific expert-derived interobserver variability (IOV) cutoffs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models using Bayesian estimation were used to investigate the association between demographic variables and the binarized DSC for each disease site. Variables with a highest density interval excluding zero were considered to substantially affect the outcome measure. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-four, 110, 452, 112, and 48 segmentations were used for the breast, sarcoma, H&N, GYN, and GI cases, respectively. The median percentage of segmentations that crossed the expert DSC IOV cutoff when stratified by structure type was 55% and 31% for OARs and tumors, respectively. Regression analysis revealed that the structure being tumor-related had a substantial negative impact on binarized DSC for the breast, sarcoma, H&N, and GI cases. There were no recurring relationships between segmentation quality and demographic variables across the cases, with most variables demonstrating large standard deviations. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights substantial uncertainty surrounding conventionally presumed factors influencing segmentation quality relative to benchmarks.

Determining The Role Of Radiation Oncologist Demographic Factors On Segmentation Quality: Insights From A Crowd-Sourced Challenge Using Bayesian Estimation.

BACKGROUND: Medical image auto-segmentation is poised to revolutionize radiotherapy workflows. The quality of auto-segmentation training data, primarily derived from clinician observers, is of utmost importance. However, the factors influencing the quality of these clinician-derived segmentations have yet to be fully understood or quantified. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the role of common observer demographic variables on quantitative segmentation performance. METHODS: Organ at risk (OAR) and tumor volume segmentations provided by radiation oncologist observers from the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology public dataset were utilized for this study. Segmentations were derived from five separate disease sites comprised of one patient case each: breast, sarcoma, head and neck (H&N), gynecologic (GYN), and gastrointestinal (GI). Segmentation quality was determined on a structure-by-structure basis by comparing the observer segmentations with an expert-derived consensus gold standard primarily using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC); surface DSC was investigated as a secondary metric. Metrics were stratified into binary groups based on previously established structure-specific expert-derived interobserver variability (IOV) cutoffs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models using Markov chain Monte Carlo Bayesian estimation were used to investigate the association between demographic variables and the binarized segmentation quality for each disease site separately. Variables with a highest density interval excluding zero - loosely analogous to frequentist significance - were considered to substantially impact the outcome measure. RESULTS: After filtering by practicing radiation oncologists, 574, 110, 452, 112, and 48 structure observations remained for the breast, sarcoma, H&N, GYN, and GI cases, respectively. The median percentage of observations that crossed the expert DSC IOV cutoff when stratified by structure type was 55% and 31% for OARs and tumor volumes, respectively. Bayesian regression analysis revealed tumor category had a substantial negative impact on binarized DSC for the breast (coefficient mean ± standard deviation: -0.97 ± 0.20), sarcoma (-1.04 ± 0.54), H&N (-1.00 ± 0.24), and GI (-2.95 ± 0.98) cases. There were no clear recurring relationships between segmentation quality and demographic variables across the cases, with most variables demonstrating large standard deviations and wide highest density intervals. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights substantial uncertainty surrounding conventionally presumed factors influencing segmentation quality. Future studies should investigate additional demographic variables, more patients and imaging modalities, and alternative metrics of segmentation acceptability.