ChIP-GPT: a managed large language model for robust data extraction from biomedical database records.

Increasing volumes of biomedical data are amassing in databases. Large-scale analyses of these data have wide-ranging applications in biology and medicine. Such analyses require tools to characterize and process entries at scale. However, existing tools, mainly centered on extracting predefined fields, often fail to comprehensively process database entries or correct evident errors-a task humans can easily perform. These tools also lack the ability to reason like domain experts, hindering their robustness and analytical depth. Recent advances with large language models (LLMs) provide a fundamentally new way to query databases. But while a tool such as ChatGPT is adept at answering questions about manually input records, challenges arise when scaling up this process. First, interactions with the LLM need to be automated. Second, limitations on input length may require a record pruning or summarization pre-processing step. Third, to behave reliably as desired, the LLM needs either well-designed, short, 'few-shot' examples, or fine-tuning based on a larger set of well-curated examples. Here, we report ChIP-GPT, based on fine-tuning of the generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) model Llama and on a program prompting the model iteratively and handling its generation of answer text. This model is designed to extract metadata from the Sequence Read Archive, emphasizing the identification of chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) targets and cell lines. When trained with 100 examples, ChIP-GPT demonstrates 90-94% accuracy. Notably, it can seamlessly extract data from records with typos or absent field labels. Our proposed method is easily adaptable to customized questions and different databases.

Uncovering the semantics of concepts using GPT-4.

The ability of recent Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to generate human-like texts suggests that social scientists could use these LLMs to construct measures of semantic similarity that match human judgment. In this article, we provide an empirical test of this intuition. We use GPT-4 to construct a measure of typicality-the similarity of a text document to a concept. We evaluate its performance against other model-based typicality measures in terms of the correlation with human typicality ratings. We conduct this comparative analysis in two domains: the typicality of books in literary genres (using an existing dataset of book descriptions) and the typicality of tweets authored by US Congress members in the Democratic and Republican parties (using a novel dataset). The typicality measure produced with GPT-4 meets or exceeds the performance of the previous state-of-the art typicality measure we introduced in a recent paper [G. Le Mens, B. Kovács, M. T. Hannan, G. Pros Rius, Sociol. Sci. 2023, 82-117 (2023)]. It accomplishes this without any training with the research data (it is zero-shot learning). This is a breakthrough because the previous state-of-the-art measure required fine-tuning an LLM on hundreds of thousands of text documents to achieve its performance.

AlpaPICO: Extraction of PICO frames from clinical trial documents using LLMs.

In recent years, there has been a surge in the publication of clinical trial reports, making it challenging to conduct systematic reviews. Automatically extracting Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) from clinical trial studies can alleviate the traditionally time-consuming process of manually scrutinizing systematic reviews. Existing approaches of PICO frame extraction involves supervised approach that relies on the existence of manually annotated data points in the form of BIO label tagging. Recent approaches, such as In-Context Learning (ICL), which has been shown to be effective for a number of downstream NLP tasks, require the use of labeled examples. In this work, we adopt ICL strategy by employing the pretrained knowledge of Large Language Models (LLMs), gathered during the pretraining phase of an LLM, to automatically extract the PICO-related terminologies from clinical trial documents in unsupervised set up to bypass the availability of large number of annotated data instances. Additionally, to showcase the highest effectiveness of LLM in oracle scenario where large number of annotated samples are available, we adopt the instruction tuning strategy by employing Low Rank Adaptation (LORA) to conduct the training of gigantic model in low resource environment for the PICO frame extraction task. More specifically, both of the proposed frameworks utilize AlpaCare as base LLM which employs both few-shot in-context learning and instruction tuning techniques to extract PICO-related terms from the clinical trial reports. We applied these approaches to the widely used coarse-grained datasets such as EBM-NLP, EBM-COMET and fine-grained datasets such as EBM-NLPrev and EBM-NLPh. Our empirical results show that our proposed ICL-based framework produces comparable results on all the version of EBM-NLP datasets and the proposed instruction tuned version of our framework produces state-of-the-art results on all the different EBM-NLP datasets. Our project is available at https://github.com/shrimonmuke0202/AlpaPICO.git.

How does artificial intelligence master urological board examinations? A comparative analysis of different Large Language Models' accuracy and reliability in the 2022 In-Service Assessment of the European Board of Urology.

PURPOSE: This study is a comparative analysis of three Large Language Models (LLMs) evaluating their rate of correct answers (RoCA) and the reliability of generated answers on a set of urological knowledge-based questions spanning different levels of complexity. METHODS: ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Bing AI underwent two testing rounds, with a 48-h gap in between, using the 100 multiple-choice questions from the 2022 European Board of Urology (EBU) In-Service Assessment (ISA). For conflicting responses, an additional consensus round was conducted to establish conclusive answers. RoCA was compared across various question complexities. Ten weeks after the consensus round, a subsequent testing round was conducted to assess potential knowledge gain and improvement in RoCA, respectively. RESULTS: Over three testing rounds, ChatGPT-3.5 achieved RoCa scores of 58%, 62%, and 59%. In contrast, ChatGPT-4 achieved RoCA scores of 63%, 77%, and 77%, while Bing AI yielded scores of 81%, 73%, and 77%, respectively. Agreement rates between rounds 1 and 2 were 84% (κ = 0.67, p < 0.001) for ChatGPT-3.5, 74% (κ = 0.40, p < 0.001) for ChatGPT-4, and 76% (κ = 0.33, p < 0.001) for BING AI. In the consensus round, ChatGPT-4 and Bing AI significantly outperformed ChatGPT-3.5 (77% and 77% vs. 59%, both p = 0.010). All LLMs demonstrated decreasing RoCA scores with increasing question complexity (p < 0.001). In the fourth round, no significant improvement in RoCA was observed across all three LLMs. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of the tested LLMs in addressing urological specialist inquiries warrants further refinement. Moreover, the deficiency in response reliability contributes to existing challenges related to their current utility for educational purposes.

Using artificial intelligence to generate medical literature for urology patients: a comparison of three different large language models.

PURPOSE: Large language models (LLMs) are a form of artificial intelligence (AI) that uses deep learning techniques to understand, summarize and generate content. The potential benefits of LLMs in healthcare is predicted to be immense. The objective of this study was to examine the quality of patient information leaflets (PILs) produced by 3 LLMs on urological topics. METHODS: Prompts were created to generate PILs from 3 LLMs: ChatGPT-4, PaLM 2 (Google Bard) and Llama 2 (Meta) across four urology topics (circumcision, nephrectomy, overactive bladder syndrome, and transurethral resection of the prostate). PILs were evaluated using a quality assessment checklist. PIL readability was assessed by the Average Reading Level Consensus Calculator. RESULTS: PILs generated by PaLM 2 had the highest overall average quality score (3.58), followed by Llama 2 (3.34) and ChatGPT-4 (3.08). PaLM 2 generated PILs were of the highest quality in all topics except TURP and was the only LLM to include images. Medical inaccuracies were present in all generated content including instances of significant error. Readability analysis identified PaLM 2 generated PILs as the simplest (age 14-15 average reading level). Llama 2 PILs were the most difficult (age 16-17 average). CONCLUSION: While LLMs can generate PILs that may help reduce healthcare professional workload, generated content requires clinician input for accuracy and inclusion of health literacy aids, such as images. LLM-generated PILs were above the average reading level for adults, necessitating improvement in LLM algorithms and/or prompt design. How satisfied patients are to LLM-generated PILs remains to be evaluated.

Assessing ChatGPT's Potential in HIV Prevention Communication: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Accuracy, Completeness, and Inclusivity.

With the advancement of artificial intelligence(AI), platforms like ChatGPT have gained traction in different fields, including Medicine. This study aims to evaluate the potential of ChatGPT in addressing questions related to HIV prevention and to assess its accuracy, completeness, and inclusivity. A team consisting of 15 physicians, six members from HIV communities, and three experts in gender and queer studies designed an assessment of ChatGPT. Queries were categorized into five thematic groups: general HIV information, behaviors increasing HIV acquisition risk, HIV and pregnancy, HIV testing, and the prophylaxis use. A team of medical doctors was in charge of developing questions to be submitted to ChatGPT. The other members critically assessed the generated responses regarding level of expertise, accuracy, completeness, and inclusivity. The median accuracy score was 5.5 out of 6, with 88.4% of responses achieving a score ≥ 5. Completeness had a median of 3 out of 3, while the median for inclusivity was 2 out of 3. Some thematic groups, like behaviors associated with HIV transmission and prophylaxis, exhibited higher accuracy, indicating variable performance across different topics. Issues of inclusivity were identified, notably the use of outdated terms and a lack of representation for some communities. ChatGPT demonstrates significant potential in providing accurate information on HIV-related topics. However, while responses were often scientifically accurate, they sometimes lacked the socio-political context and inclusivity essential for effective health communication. This underlines the importance of aligning AI-driven platforms with contemporary health communication strategies and ensuring the balance of accuracy and inclusivity.

Can large language models pass official high-grade exams of the European Society of Neuroradiology courses? A direct comparison between OpenAI chatGPT 3.5, OpenAI GPT4 and Google Bard.

We compared different LLMs, notably chatGPT, GPT4, and Google Bard and we tested whether their performance differs in subspeciality domains, in executing examinations from four different courses of the European Society of Neuroradiology (ESNR) notably anatomy/embryology, neuro-oncology, head and neck and pediatrics. Written exams of ESNR were used as input data, related to anatomy/embryology (30 questions), neuro-oncology (50 questions), head and neck (50 questions), and pediatrics (50 questions). All exams together, and each exam separately were introduced to the three LLMs: chatGPT 3.5, GPT4, and Google Bard. Statistical analyses included a group-wise Friedman test followed by a pair-wise Wilcoxon test with multiple comparison corrections. Overall, there was a significant difference between the 3 LLMs (p < 0.0001), with GPT4 having the highest accuracy (70%), followed by chatGPT 3.5 (54%) and Google Bard (36%). The pair-wise comparison showed significant differences between chatGPT vs GPT 4 (p < 0.0001), chatGPT vs Bard (p < 0. 0023), and GPT4 vs Bard (p < 0.0001). Analyses per subspecialty showed the highest difference between the best LLM (GPT4, 70%) versus the worst LLM (Google Bard, 24%) in the head and neck exam, while the difference was least pronounced in neuro-oncology (GPT4, 62% vs Google Bard, 48%). We observed significant differences in the performance of the three different LLMs in the running of official exams organized by ESNR. Overall GPT 4 performed best, and Google Bard performed worst. This difference varied depending on subspeciality and was most pronounced in head and neck subspeciality.

Performance of Progressive Generations of GPT on an Exam Designed for Certifying Physicians as Certified Clinical Densitometrists.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have demonstrated the ability to pass standardized exams. These models are not trained for a specific task, but instead trained to predict sequences of text from large corpora of documents sourced from the internet. It has been shown that even models trained on this general task can pass exams in a variety of domain-specific fields, including the United States Medical Licensing Examination. We asked if large language models would perform as well on a much narrower subdomain tests designed for medical specialists. Furthermore, we wanted to better understand how progressive generations of GPT (generative pre-trained transformer) models may be evolving in the completeness and sophistication of their responses even while generational training remains general. In this study, we evaluated the performance of two versions of GPT (GPT 3 and 4) on their ability to pass the certification exam given to physicians to work as osteoporosis specialists and become a certified clinical densitometrists. The CCD exam has a possible score range of 150 to 400. To pass, you need a score of 300. METHODS: A 100-question multiple-choice practice exam was obtained from a 3rd party exam preparation website that mimics the accredited certification tests given by the ISCD (International Society for Clinical Densitometry). The exam was administered to two versions of GPT, the free version (GPT Playground) and ChatGPT+, which are based on GPT-3 and GPT-4, respectively (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA). The systems were prompted with the exam questions verbatim. If the response was purely textual and did not specify which of the multiple-choice answers to select, the authors matched the text to the closest answer. Each exam was graded and an estimated ISCD score was provided from the exam website. In addition, each response was evaluated by a rheumatologist CCD and ranked for accuracy using a 5-level scale. The two GPT versions were compared in terms of response accuracy and length. RESULTS: The average response length was 11.6 ±19 words for GPT-3 and 50.0±43.6 words for GPT-4. GPT-3 answered 62 questions correctly resulting in a failing ISCD score of 289. However, GPT-4 answered 82 questions correctly with a passing score of 342. GPT-3 scored highest on the "Overview of Low Bone Mass and Osteoporosis" category (72 % correct) while GPT-4 scored well above 80 % accuracy on all categories except "Imaging Technology in Bone Health" (65 % correct). Regarding subjective accuracy, GPT-3 answered 23 questions with nonsensical or totally wrong responses while GPT-4 had no responses in that category. CONCLUSION: If this had been an actual certification exam, GPT-4 would now have a CCD suffix to its name even after being trained using general internet knowledge. Clearly, more goes into physician training than can be captured in this exam. However, GPT algorithms may prove to be valuable physician aids in the diagnoses and monitoring of osteoporosis and other diseases.

Large language models as assistance for glaucoma surgical cases: a ChatGPT vs. Google Gemini comparison.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to define the capability of ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini in analyzing detailed glaucoma case descriptions and suggesting an accurate surgical plan. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 60 medical records of surgical glaucoma was divided into "ordinary" (n = 40) and "challenging" (n = 20) scenarios. Case descriptions were entered into ChatGPT and Bard's interfaces with the question "What kind of surgery would you perform?" and repeated three times to analyze the answers' consistency. After collecting the answers, we assessed the level of agreement with the unified opinion of three glaucoma surgeons. Moreover, we graded the quality of the responses with scores from 1 (poor quality) to 5 (excellent quality), according to the Global Quality Score (GQS) and compared the results. RESULTS: ChatGPT surgical choice was consistent with those of glaucoma specialists in 35/60 cases (58%), compared to 19/60 (32%) of Gemini (p = 0.0001). Gemini was not able to complete the task in 16 cases (27%). Trabeculectomy was the most frequent choice for both chatbots (53% and 50% for ChatGPT and Gemini, respectively). In "challenging" cases, ChatGPT agreed with specialists in 9/20 choices (45%), outperforming Google Gemini performances (4/20, 20%). Overall, GQS scores were 3.5 ± 1.2 and 2.1 ± 1.5 for ChatGPT and Gemini (p = 0.002). This difference was even more marked if focusing only on "challenging" cases (1.5 ± 1.4 vs. 3.0 ± 1.5, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: ChatGPT-4 showed a good analysis performance for glaucoma surgical cases, either ordinary or challenging. On the other side, Google Gemini showed strong limitations in this setting, presenting high rates of unprecise or missed answers.

Using Large Language Models to Support Content Analysis: A Case Study of ChatGPT for Adverse Event Detection.

This study explores the potential of using large language models to assist content analysis by conducting a case study to identify adverse events (AEs) in social media posts. The case study compares ChatGPT's performance with human annotators' in detecting AEs associated with delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, a cannabis-derived product. Using the identical instructions given to human annotators, ChatGPT closely approximated human results, with a high degree of agreement noted: 94.4% (9436/10,000) for any AE detection (Fleiss κ=0.95) and 99.3% (9931/10,000) for serious AEs (κ=0.96). These findings suggest that ChatGPT has the potential to replicate human annotation accurately and efficiently. The study recognizes possible limitations, including concerns about the generalizability due to ChatGPT's training data, and prompts further research with different models, data sources, and content analysis tasks. The study highlights the promise of large language models for enhancing the efficiency of biomedical research.

Comparison of the Quality of Discharge Letters Written by Large Language Models and Junior Clinicians: Single-Blinded Study.

BACKGROUND: Discharge letters are a critical component in the continuity of care between specialists and primary care providers. However, these letters are time-consuming to write, underprioritized in comparison to direct clinical care, and are often tasked to junior doctors. Prior studies assessing the quality of discharge summaries written for inpatient hospital admissions show inadequacies in many domains. Large language models such as GPT have the ability to summarize large volumes of unstructured free text such as electronic medical records and have the potential to automate such tasks, providing time savings and consistency in quality. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of GPT-4 in generating discharge letters written from urology specialist outpatient clinics to primary care providers and to compare their quality against letters written by junior clinicians. METHODS: Fictional electronic records were written by physicians simulating 5 common urology outpatient cases with long-term follow-up. Records comprised simulated consultation notes, referral letters and replies, and relevant discharge summaries from inpatient admissions. GPT-4 was tasked to write discharge letters for these cases with a specified target audience of primary care providers who would be continuing the patient's care. Prompts were written for safety, content, and style. Concurrently, junior clinicians were provided with the same case records and instructional prompts. GPT-4 output was assessed for instances of hallucination. A blinded panel of primary care physicians then evaluated the letters using a standardized questionnaire tool. RESULTS: GPT-4 outperformed human counterparts in information provision (mean 4.32, SD 0.95 vs 3.70, SD 1.27; P=.03) and had no instances of hallucination. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean clarity (4.16, SD 0.95 vs 3.68, SD 1.24; P=.12), collegiality (4.36, SD 1.00 vs 3.84, SD 1.22; P=.05), conciseness (3.60, SD 1.12 vs 3.64, SD 1.27; P=.71), follow-up recommendations (4.16, SD 1.03 vs 3.72, SD 1.13; P=.08), and overall satisfaction (3.96, SD 1.14 vs 3.62, SD 1.34; P=.36) between the letters generated by GPT-4 and humans, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Discharge letters written by GPT-4 had equivalent quality to those written by junior clinicians, without any hallucinations. This study provides a proof of concept that large language models can be useful and safe tools in clinical documentation.

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.

Large Language Models and User Trust: Consequence of Self-Referential Learning Loop and the Deskilling of Health Care Professionals.

As the health care industry increasingly embraces large language models (LLMs), understanding the consequence of this integration becomes crucial for maximizing benefits while mitigating potential pitfalls. This paper explores the evolving relationship among clinician trust in LLMs, the transition of data sources from predominantly human-generated to artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content, and the subsequent impact on the performance of LLMs and clinician competence. One of the primary concerns identified in this paper is the LLMs' self-referential learning loops, where AI-generated content feeds into the learning algorithms, threatening the diversity of the data pool, potentially entrenching biases, and reducing the efficacy of LLMs. While theoretical at this stage, this feedback loop poses a significant challenge as the integration of LLMs in health care deepens, emphasizing the need for proactive dialogue and strategic measures to ensure the safe and effective use of LLM technology. Another key takeaway from our investigation is the role of user expertise and the necessity for a discerning approach to trusting and validating LLM outputs. The paper highlights how expert users, particularly clinicians, can leverage LLMs to enhance productivity by off-loading routine tasks while maintaining a critical oversight to identify and correct potential inaccuracies in AI-generated content. This balance of trust and skepticism is vital for ensuring that LLMs augment rather than undermine the quality of patient care. We also discuss the risks associated with the deskilling of health care professionals. Frequent reliance on LLMs for critical tasks could result in a decline in health care providers' diagnostic and thinking skills, particularly affecting the training and development of future professionals. The legal and ethical considerations surrounding the deployment of LLMs in health care are also examined. We discuss the medicolegal challenges, including liability in cases of erroneous diagnoses or treatment advice generated by LLMs. The paper references recent legislative efforts, such as The Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023, as crucial steps toward establishing a framework for the ethical and responsible use of AI-based technologies in health care. In conclusion, this paper advocates for a strategic approach to integrating LLMs into health care. By emphasizing the importance of maintaining clinician expertise, fostering critical engagement with LLM outputs, and navigating the legal and ethical landscape, we can ensure that LLMs serve as valuable tools in enhancing patient care and supporting health care professionals. This approach addresses the immediate challenges posed by integrating LLMs and sets a foundation for their maintainable and responsible use in the future.

Automated Paper Screening for Clinical Reviews Using Large Language Models: Data Analysis Study.

BACKGROUND: The systematic review of clinical research papers is a labor-intensive and time-consuming process that often involves the screening of thousands of titles and abstracts. The accuracy and efficiency of this process are critical for the quality of the review and subsequent health care decisions. Traditional methods rely heavily on human reviewers, often requiring a significant investment of time and resources. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the performance of the OpenAI generative pretrained transformer (GPT) and GPT-4 application programming interfaces (APIs) in accurately and efficiently identifying relevant titles and abstracts from real-world clinical review data sets and comparing their performance against ground truth labeling by 2 independent human reviewers. METHODS: We introduce a novel workflow using the Chat GPT and GPT-4 APIs for screening titles and abstracts in clinical reviews. A Python script was created to make calls to the API with the screening criteria in natural language and a corpus of title and abstract data sets filtered by a minimum of 2 human reviewers. We compared the performance of our model against human-reviewed papers across 6 review papers, screening over 24,000 titles and abstracts. RESULTS: Our results show an accuracy of 0.91, a macro F1-score of 0.60, a sensitivity of excluded papers of 0.91, and a sensitivity of included papers of 0.76. The interrater variability between 2 independent human screeners was κ=0.46, and the prevalence and bias-adjusted κ between our proposed methods and the consensus-based human decisions was κ=0.96. On a randomly selected subset of papers, the GPT models demonstrated the ability to provide reasoning for their decisions and corrected their initial decisions upon being asked to explain their reasoning for incorrect classifications. CONCLUSIONS: Large language models have the potential to streamline the clinical review process, save valuable time and effort for researchers, and contribute to the overall quality of clinical reviews. By prioritizing the workflow and acting as an aid rather than a replacement for researchers and reviewers, models such as GPT-4 can enhance efficiency and lead to more accurate and reliable conclusions in medical research.

Assessing ChatGPT's Mastery of Bloom's Taxonomy Using Psychosomatic Medicine Exam Questions: Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Large language models such as GPT-4 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4) are being increasingly used in medicine and medical education. However, these models are prone to "hallucinations" (ie, outputs that seem convincing while being factually incorrect). It is currently unknown how these errors by large language models relate to the different cognitive levels defined in Bloom's taxonomy. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore how GPT-4 performs in terms of Bloom's taxonomy using psychosomatic medicine exam questions. METHODS: We used a large data set of psychosomatic medicine multiple-choice questions (N=307) with real-world results derived from medical school exams. GPT-4 answered the multiple-choice questions using 2 distinct prompt versions: detailed and short. The answers were analyzed using a quantitative approach and a qualitative approach. Focusing on incorrectly answered questions, we categorized reasoning errors according to the hierarchical framework of Bloom's taxonomy. RESULTS: GPT-4's performance in answering exam questions yielded a high success rate: 93% (284/307) for the detailed prompt and 91% (278/307) for the short prompt. Questions answered correctly by GPT-4 had a statistically significant higher difficulty than questions answered incorrectly (P=.002 for the detailed prompt and P<.001 for the short prompt). Independent of the prompt, GPT-4's lowest exam performance was 78.9% (15/19), thereby always surpassing the "pass" threshold. Our qualitative analysis of incorrect answers, based on Bloom's taxonomy, showed that errors were primarily in the "remember" (29/68) and "understand" (23/68) cognitive levels; specific issues arose in recalling details, understanding conceptual relationships, and adhering to standardized guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: GPT-4 demonstrated a remarkable success rate when confronted with psychosomatic medicine multiple-choice exam questions, aligning with previous findings. When evaluated through Bloom's taxonomy, our data revealed that GPT-4 occasionally ignored specific facts (remember), provided illogical reasoning (understand), or failed to apply concepts to a new situation (apply). These errors, which were confidently presented, could be attributed to inherent model biases and the tendency to generate outputs that maximize likelihood.

ARDSFlag: an NLP/machine learning algorithm to visualize and detect high-probability ARDS admissions independent of provider recognition and billing codes.

BACKGROUND: Despite the significance and prevalence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), its detection remains highly variable and inconsistent. In this work, we aim to develop an algorithm (ARDSFlag) to automate the diagnosis of ARDS based on the Berlin definition. We also aim to develop a visualization tool that helps clinicians efficiently assess ARDS criteria. METHODS: ARDSFlag applies machine learning (ML) and natural language processing (NLP) techniques to evaluate Berlin criteria by incorporating structured and unstructured data in an electronic health record (EHR) system. The study cohort includes 19,534 ICU admissions in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III) database. The output is the ARDS diagnosis, onset time, and severity. RESULTS: ARDSFlag includes separate text classifiers trained using large training sets to find evidence of bilateral infiltrates in radiology reports (accuracy of 91.9%±0.5%) and heart failure/fluid overload in radiology reports (accuracy 86.1%±0.5%) and echocardiogram notes (accuracy 98.4%±0.3%). A test set of 300 cases, which was blindly and independently labeled for ARDS by two groups of clinicians, shows that ARDSFlag generates an overall accuracy of 89.0% (specificity = 91.7%, recall = 80.3%, and precision = 75.0%) in detecting ARDS cases. CONCLUSION: To our best knowledge, this is the first study to focus on developing a method to automate the detection of ARDS. Some studies have developed and used other methods to answer other research questions. Expectedly, ARDSFlag generates a significantly higher performance in all accuracy measures compared to those methods.

The tools of the future are the challenges of today: The use of ChatGPT in problem-based learning medical education.

What is the educational challenge?Incorporation of large language model (LLM) or generative artificial intelligence (AI) software poses a challenge to various areas of medical education, including problem-based learning (PBL). LLMs, such as ChatGPT, have incredible potential to transform educational systems and enhance student learning outcomes when used responsibly.What are the proposed solutions?ChatGPT can provide several ways to support students and assist facilitators with course responsibilities. Here we address factors of implementation and describe how ChatGPT can be responsibly utilized to support key elements of PBL.How was the solution implemented?Providing reasonable access is an essential element of novel software implementation. Additionally, training for both faculty and staff is vital to foster responsible usage, provide base-line proficiency, and guide users to critically evaluate the quality of output.What lessons were learned that are relevant to a wider audience?The use of LLMs or other generative AI is dramatically rising in the world. Appropriate and conscientious incorporation of AI into educational programs can foster responsible use and potentially enhance student learning.What are the next steps?Assessment of learning outcomes, student self-efficacy, group dynamics, and stakeholder feedback are required to measure the effects of ChatGPT in the PBL curriculum. Additionally, software programs competitive with ChatGPT are currently under development and will also need to be investigated for their potential role in education.

Is ChatGPT 'ready' to be a learning tool for medical undergraduates and will it perform equally in different subjects? Comparative study of ChatGPT performance in tutorial and case-based learning questions in physiology and biochemistry.

PURPOSE: Generative AI will become an integral part of education in future. The potential of this technology in different disciplines should be identified to promote effective adoption. This study evaluated the performance of ChatGPT in tutorial and case-based learning questions in physiology and biochemistry for medical undergraduates. Our study mainly focused on the performance of GPT-3.5 version while a subgroup was comparatively assessed on GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 performances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Answers were generated in GPT-3.5 for 44 modified essay questions (MEQs) in physiology and 43 MEQs in biochemistry. Each answer was graded by two independent examiners. Subsequently, a subset of 15 questions from each subject were selected to represent different score categories of the GPT-3.5 answers; responses were generated in GPT-4, and graded. RESULTS: The mean score for physiology answers was 74.7 (SD 25.96). GPT-3.5 demonstrated a statistically significant (p = .009) superior performance in lower-order questions of Bloom's taxonomy in comparison to higher-order questions. Deficiencies in the application of physiological principles in clinical context were noted as a drawback. Scores in biochemistry were relatively lower with a mean score of 59.3 (SD 26.9) for GPT-3.5. There was no statistically significant difference in the scores for higher and lower-order questions of Bloom's taxonomy. The deficiencies highlighted were lack of in-depth explanations and precision. The subset of questions where the GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 were compared demonstrated a better overall performance in GPT-4 responses in both subjects. This difference between the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 performance was statistically significant in biochemistry but not in physiology. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in performance across the two versions, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across the disciplines are noteworthy. Educators and students should understand the strengths and limitations of this technology in different fields to effectively integrate this technology into teaching and learning.

Can AI Answer My Questions? Utilizing Artificial Intelligence in the Perioperative Assessment for Abdominoplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: Abdominoplasty is a common operation, used for a range of cosmetic and functional issues, often in the context of divarication of recti, significant weight loss, and after pregnancy. Despite this, patient-surgeon communication gaps can hinder informed decision-making. The integration of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare offers potential for enhancing patient information. This study evaluated the feasibility of using LLMs for answering perioperative queries. METHODS: This study assessed the efficacy of four leading LLMs-OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5, Anthropic's Claude, Google's Gemini, and Bing's CoPilot-using fifteen unique prompts. All outputs were evaluated using the Flesch-Kincaid, Flesch Reading Ease score, and Coleman-Liau index for readability assessment. The DISCERN score and a Likert scale were utilized to evaluate quality. Scores were assigned by two plastic surgical residents and then reviewed and discussed until a consensus was reached by five plastic surgeon specialists. RESULTS: ChatGPT-3.5 required the highest level for comprehension, followed by Gemini, Claude, then CoPilot. Claude provided the most appropriate and actionable advice. In terms of patient-friendliness, CoPilot outperformed the rest, enhancing engagement and information comprehensiveness. ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini offered adequate, though unremarkable, advice, employing more professional language. CoPilot uniquely included visual aids and was the only model to use hyperlinks, although they were not very helpful and acceptable, and it faced limitations in responding to certain queries. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT-3.5, Gemini, Claude, and Bing's CoPilot showcased differences in readability and reliability. LLMs offer unique advantages for patient care but require careful selection. Future research should integrate LLM strengths and address weaknesses for optimal patient education. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Can ChatGPT pass Glycobiology?

The release of text-generating applications based on interactive Large Language Models (LLMs) in late 2022 triggered an unprecedented and ever-growing interest worldwide. The almost instantaneous success of LLMs stimulated lively discussions in public media and in academic fora alike not only on the value and potentials of such tools in all areas of knowledge and information acquisition and distribution but also on the dangers posed by their uncontrolled and indiscriminate use. This conversation is now particularly active in the higher education sector, where LLMs are seen as a potential threat to academic integrity at all levels, from facilitating cheating by students in assignments to plagiarizing academic writing in the case of researchers and administrators. Within this framework, we are interested in testing the boundaries of the LLM ChatGPT (www.openai.com) in areas of our scientific interest and expertise and in analyzing the results from different perspectives, i.e. of a final year BSc student, of a research scientist, and of a lecturer in higher education. To this end, in this paper, we present and discuss a systematic evaluation on how ChatGPT addresses progressively complex scientific writing tasks and exam-type questions in Carbohydrate Chemistry and Glycobiology. The results of this project allowed us to gain insight on: (i) the strengths and limitations of the ChatGPT model to provide relevant and (most importantly) correct scientific information, (ii) the format(s) and complexity of the query required to obtain the desired output, and (iii) strategies to integrate LLMs in teaching and learning.