Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy: a comparison of NASS guidelines and ChatGPT.
Kayastha, Ankur; Lakshmanan, Kirthika; Valentine, Michael J; Nguyen, Anh; Dholakia, Kaushal; Wang, Daniel.
Afiliação
  • Kayastha A; Kansas City University, Kansas City, MO, United States.
  • Lakshmanan K; Kansas City University, Kansas City, MO, United States.
  • Valentine MJ; Kansas City University, Kansas City, MO, United States.
  • Nguyen A; Kansas City University, Kansas City, MO, United States.
  • Dholakia K; Kansas City University, Kansas City, MO, United States.
  • Wang D; MedStar Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
N Am Spine Soc J ; 19: 100333, 2024 Sep.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39040948
ABSTRACT

Background:

ChatGPT is an advanced language AI able to generate responses to clinical questions regarding lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly being considered to assist clinicians in decision-making. This study compared ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 responses to established NASS clinical guidelines and evaluated concordance.

Methods:

ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 were prompted with fifteen questions from The 2012 NASS Clinical Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. Clinical questions organized into categories were directly entered as unmodified queries into ChatGPT. Language output was assessed by two independent authors on September 26, 2023 based on operationally-defined parameters of accuracy, over-conclusiveness, supplementary, and incompleteness. ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 performance was compared via chi-square analyses.

Results:

Among the fifteen responses produced by ChatGPT-3.5, 7 (47%) were accurate, 7 (47%) were over-conclusive, fifteen (100%) were supplementary, and 6 (40%) were incomplete. For ChatGPT-4.0, ten (67%) were accurate, 5 (33%) were over-conclusive, 10 (67%) were supplementary, and 6 (40%) were incomplete. There was a statistically significant difference in supplementary information (100% vs. 67%; p=.014) between ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0. Accuracy (47% vs. 67%; p=.269), over-conclusiveness (47% vs. 33%; p=.456), and incompleteness (40% vs. 40%; p=1.000) did not show significant differences between ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0. ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 both yielded 100% accuracy for definition and history and physical examination categories. Diagnostic testing yielded 0% accuracy for ChatGPT-3.5 and 100% accuracy for ChatGPT-4.0. Nonsurgical interventions had 50% accuracy for ChatGPT-3.5 and 63% accuracy for ChatGPT-4.0. Surgical interventions resulted in 0% accuracy for ChatGPT-3.5 and 33% accuracy for ChatGPT-4.0.

Conclusions:

ChatGPT-4.0 provided less supplementary information and overall higher accuracy in question categories than ChatGPT-3.5. ChatGPT showed reasonable concordance to NASS guidelines, but clinicians should caution use of ChatGPT in its current state as it fails to safeguard against misinformation.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article