The Large Language Model GPT-4 Compared to Endocrinologist Responses on Initial Choice of Antidiabetic Medication under Conditions of Clinical Uncertainty.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how the commercially available large language model (LLM) GPT-4 compares to endocrinologists when addressing medical questions when there is uncertainty regarding the best answer. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study compared responses from GPT-4 to responses from 31 endocrinologists using hypothetical clinical vignettes focused on diabetes, specifically examining the prescription of metformin versus alternative treatments. The primary outcome was the choice between metformin and other treatments. RESULTS: With a simple prompt, GPT-4 chose metformin in 12% (95% CI 7.9-17%) of responses, compared with 31% (95% CI 23-39%) of endocrinologist responses. After modifying the prompt to encourage metformin use, the selection of metformin by GPT-4 increased to 25% (95% CI 22-28%). GPT-4 rarely selected metformin in patients with impaired kidney function, or a history of gastrointestinal distress (2.9% of responses, 95% CI 1.4-5.5%). In contrast, endocrinologists often prescribed metformin even in patients with a history of gastrointestinal distress (21% of responses, 95% CI 12-36%). GPT-4 responses showed low variability on repeated runs except at intermediate levels of kidney function. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical scenarios with no single right answer, GPT-4's responses were reasonable, but differed from endocrinologists' responses in clinically important ways. Value judgments are needed to determine when these differences should be addressed by adjusting the model. We recommend against reliance on LLM output until it is shown to align not just with clinical guidelines but also with patient and clinician preferences, or it demonstrates improvement in clinical outcomes over standard of care.

Middle meningeal artery embolization following surgical evacuation of symptomatic chronic subdural hematoma improves outcomes, interim results of a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes after surgical treatment of chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) remain undesirable in a significant proportion of patients. We aimed to show the role of middle meningeal artery (MMA) embolization and to demonstrate its benefits. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with symptomatic cSDH were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial following evacuation surgery. Participants were randomized to embolization or control group (expectant management following surgical evacuation without embolization). Patients were followed throughout their hospitalization and outpatient follow-ups. The main goals of this planned interim analysis were to assess neurological outcome and resource utilization. RESULTS: The groups were comparable in terms of sex, age and follow-up retention rates. Side(s) of intervention(s) and hematoma size were similar. There was no statistical difference in neurological examination improvement at discharge, but at follow-up, we observed a decline in neurologic exam in the control group (p = 0.03). Control group participants required more re-interventions (p = 0.02) and were followed in clinic and during related readmissions for longer (p = 0.02). The number of imaging studies obtained in relation to the disease management was higher in the control group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a beneficial role for the addition of MMA embolization to surgical intervention in the treatment of symptomatic chronic subdural hematoma. Neurological outcomes were significantly better in the embolization group. This contributed to less need for follow-up, re-interventions, and imaging studies.

Public Views on Whether the Use of Pharmaceutical Neuroenhancements Should Be Allowed.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Some individuals are using drugs to try to enhance cognitive and social-affective functioning and asking physicians for off-label prescriptions for neuroenhancement (e.g., stimulants). Several medical societies released guidance on prescribing neuroenhancers, some of which refer to potential societal effects of neuroenhancement (e.g., distributive justice), besides risks and benefits to users. Which institutions (e.g., medical societies, government, universities) should make decisions on allowing neuroenhancement and whether they should consider potential societal effects are unclear. We examined whether and how much support for allowing pharmaceutical neuroenhancers was influenced by the institution and potential individual and societal effects of neuroenhancers. METHODS: We conducted a discrete-choice experiment using a constructed representative sample of the US adult public. Multinomial logit models were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Participants (n = 927) demographically resembled the US population. Risks of serious side effects (OR 0.20, CI 0.18-0.22) and a lack of benefits for users (OR 0.31, CI 0.26-0.38) had the largest negative effect on participants' support for allowing neuroenhancers. A risk of mild side effects had a moderate negative effect on participants' support for allowing neuroenhancers (OR 0.67, CI 0.62-0.74) and the prospect of more meaningful, long-lasting benefits for users a moderate positive effect (OR 1.74, CI 1.61-1.87). Positive or negative effects of neuroenhancers on the average well-being of people in society and on equality had moderate effects on participants' support for allowing neuroenhancers. For example, the odds of participants' support for allowing enhancers with a negative effect on societal well-being were around half (OR 0.45, CI 0.40-0.50) and the odds of allowing enhancers that worsen inequality were approximately 40% lower compared with enhancers without such effects (OR 0.62, CI 0.55-0.71). The odds of participants allowing neuroenhancers were slightly (10%) lower if enhancers reduced users' authenticity (OR 0.90, CI 0.84-0.97). The institution regulating neuroenhancers and neuroenhancers providing users with an unfair advantage did not affect participants' decisions. DISCUSSION: When presented with both individual and societal considerations, the public seems to support medical societies and other institutions making policy decisions about neuroenhancers based on risks and benefits for users, as well as, but to a lesser extent, effects on equality and societal well-being.

Pipeline Embolization Device and Flow Re-Direction Endoluminal Device for Intracranial Aneurysms: A Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study.

BACKGROUND: When it comes to intracranial aneurysms, the quest for more effective treatments is ongoing. Flow diversion represents a growing advancement in this field. This review seeks to compare 2 variants of the endovascular flow diversion method: the Flow Re-Direction Endoluminal Device (FRED) and the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase, using appropriate terms to compare PED and FRED in double-arm studies from conception until October 8th, 2023. RESULTS: The meta-analysis encompassed 1769 patients, with a predominance of females (75.5%), among whom 973 patients underwent FRED procedures, while 651 received PED interventions. At 6 months, complete occlusion rates were 0.62 for FRED and 0.68 for PED (P = 0.68). At 1 year and the last follow-up, no significant differences were observed between FRED and PED, respectively. Adequate occlusion rates were similar between FRED and PED (0.82 vs. 0.79, P = 0.68). FRED showed a statistically significant higher rate of good mRS scores at follow-up (1.00 vs. 0.97, P = 0.03). Hemorrhage and re-treatment rates were higher in PED (P < 0.01) without considering the rupture status of the aneurysms due to the lack of data. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests comparable efficacy but different safety profiles between FRED and PED in treating intracranial aneurysms. FRED demonstrated a higher rate of good modified Rankin scores, while PED showed increased hemorrhage and re-treatment rates. Understanding these differences is crucial for informed decision-making in clinical practice.

Newer treatment paradigm improves outcomes in the most common neurosurgical disease of the elderly: a literature review of middle meningeal artery embolization for chronic subdural hematoma.

Chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) is one of the most prevalent neurosurgical diseases, especially in the elderly. Yet, its incidence is predicted to increase further, paralleling the growth of the geriatric population. While surgical evacuation is technically straightforward, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In fact, 30% of patients are expected to have hematoma recurrence and to need repeat surgical evacuation, and 20% of patients are expected to lose independence and require long-term care. A pathophysiology more complex than originally presumed explains the disappointing results observed for decades. At its core, the formation of microcapillaries and anastomotic channels with the middle meningeal artery (MMA) perpetuates a constant cycle resulting in persistence of hematoma. The rationale behind MMA embolization is simple: to stop cSDH at its source. Over the last few years, this "newer" option has been heavily studied. It has shown tremendous potential in decreasing hematoma recurrence and improving neurological outcomes. Whether combined with surgical evacuation or performed as the only treatment, the scientific evidence to its benefits is unequivocal. Here, we aimed to review cSDH in the elderly and discuss its more recent treatment options with an emphasis on MMA embolization.

Carotid artery dissection and non-aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage following carotid endarterectomy.

Stroke continues to be a major public health issue resulting in high mortality and severe long-term disability. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) plays an important role in the prevention of ischemic stroke. Complications associated with CEA can be life threatening and prompt recognition is crucial. In this report, we present a patient who presented to the hospital with progressive headache, 2 weeks following CEA. He was neurologically intact and hypertensive. Non-contrast head computed tomography (CT) scan showed convexity subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). He was found to have a left internal carotid artery dissection. Patients who present to the hospital following CEA with headache and hypertension benefit from a non-contrast head CT scan. The presence of SAH can be a warning sign of cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome. Carotid artery dissection is also a disease entity that can occur in the post-operative period. Prompt recognition and treatment is crucial for the management of these disease entities.

The Ottawa Statement implementation guidance document for cluster randomized trials in the hemodialysis setting.

Research teams are increasingly interested in using cluster randomized trial (CRT) designs to generate practice-guiding evidence for in-center maintenance hemodialysis. However, CRTs raise complex ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues arising within 7 domains: justifying the CRT design, research ethics committee review, identifying research participants, obtaining informed consent, gatekeepers, assessing benefits and harms, and protecting vulnerable participants. But applying the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting is complicated by the unique features of the setting and population. Here, with the help of content experts and patient partners, we co-developed this implementation guidance document to provide research teams, research ethics committees, and other stakeholders with detailed guidance on how to apply the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, the result of a 4-year research project. Thus, our work demonstrates how the voices of patients, caregivers, and all stakeholders may be included in the development of research ethics guidance.

Expert Views on Medical Involvement in the Swiss Assisted Dying Practice: "We Want to Have Our Cake and Eat It Too"?

BACKGROUND: Most jurisdictions that allow euthanasia and assisted suicide (AS) regulate it through the medical profession. However, the extent and nature of how medicine should be involved are debated. Swiss AS practice is unusual in that it is managed by lay AS organizations that rely on a law that permits AS when done for nonselfish reasons. Physicians are not mentioned in the law but are usually called upon to prescribe the lethal medications and perform capacity evaluations. METHODS: We analyzed in-depth interviews of 23 Swiss AS experts including ethicists, lawyers, medical practitioners, and senior officials of AS organizations for their views on AS. RESULTS: Although there was agreement on some issues (e.g., need for better end-of-life care), the interviewees' preferred model for AS, and the nature of preferred medical involvement, varied, which we categorized into five types: preference for AS practice as it occurred prior to lay AS organizations; preference for the current lay model; preference for a modified lay model to increase autonomy protections while limiting medical AS normalization; preference for various types of more medicalized models of AS; and, ambivalence about any specific model of medical involvement. The rationales given for each type of model reflected varying opinions on how medicine's role would likely impact AS practice and demonstrated the experts' attitudes toward those impacts. CONCLUSION: The dynamics within the Swiss AS regime, as reflected in the varying views of Swiss AS experts, shed light on the dilemmas inherent to medical scope and involvement in AS, which may have implications for debates in other jurisdictions.

Questioning our presumptions about the presumption of capacity.

All contemporary frameworks of mental capacity stipulate that we must begin from the presumption that an adult has capacity. This presumption is crucial, as it manifests respect for autonomy and guards against prejudice and paternalism on the part of the evaluator.Given its ubiquity, we might presume that we all understand the presumption's meaning and application in the same way. Evidence demonstrates that this is not the case and that this has led to harm in vulnerable persons. There is thus strong reason to question our presumptions about the presumption of capacity.We distinguish between two main ways of understanding and applying the presumption of capacity, and advocate for the one that we argue mitigates risk of harm. Our proposed interpretation offers many advantages in that it is consonant with actual practice of capacity evaluations, precludes confused and abusive avoidance of needed evaluations, and preserves the respect for autonomy motivating the presumption in the first place.

Risk-Sensitive Assessment of Decision-Making Capacity: A Comprehensive Defense.

Should the assessment of decision-making capacity (DMC) be risk sensitive, that is, should the threshold for DMC vary with risk? The debate over this question is now nearly five decades old. To many, the idea that DMC assessments should be risk sensitive is intuitive and commonsense. To others, the idea is paternalistic or incoherent, or both; they argue that the riskiness of a given decision should increase the epistemic scrutiny in the evaluation of DMC, not increase the threshold for DMC. We respond to the critics' main concerns by providing a comprehensive account of how risk-sensitive DMC is coherent, avoids paternalism, and best fulfills the epistemic goal of DMC evaluations.

Epistemic injustice and the psychiatrist.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatrists depend on their patients for clinical information and are obligated to regard them as trustworthy, except in special circumstances. Nevertheless, some critics of psychiatry have argued that psychiatrists frequently perpetrate epistemic injustice against patients. Epistemic injustice is a moral wrong that involves unfairly discriminating against a person with respect to their ability to know things because of personal characteristics like gender or psychiatric diagnosis. METHODS: We review the concept of epistemic injustice and several claims that psychiatric practice is epistemically unjust. RESULTS: While acknowledging the risk of epistemic injustice in psychiatry and other medical fields, we argue that most concerns that psychiatric practice is epistemically unjust are unfounded. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of epistemic injustice does not add significantly to existing standards of good clinical practice, and that it could produce changes in practice that would be deleterious. Psychiatrists should resist calls for changes to clinical practice based on this type of criticism.