Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluation of responses to cardiac imaging questions by the artificial intelligence large language model ChatGPT.
Monroe, Cynthia L; Abdelhafez, Yasser G; Atsina, Kwame; Aman, Edris; Nardo, Lorenzo; Madani, Mohammad H.
Afiliação
  • Monroe CL; College of Medicine, California Northstate University, 9700 W Taron Dr, Elk Grove, CA 95757, USA.
  • Abdelhafez YG; Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis Medical Center, 4860 Y St, Suite 3100, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.
  • Atsina K; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of California, Davis Medical Center, 4860 Y St, Suite 0200, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.
  • Aman E; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of California, Davis Medical Center, 4860 Y St, Suite 0200, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.
  • Nardo L; Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis Medical Center, 4860 Y St, Suite 3100, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.
  • Madani MH; Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis Medical Center, 4860 Y St, Suite 3100, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. Electronic address: mhmadani@ucdavis.edu.
Clin Imaging ; 112: 110193, 2024 Aug.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38820977
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

To assess ChatGPT's ability as a resource for educating patients on various aspects of cardiac imaging, including diagnosis, imaging modalities, indications, interpretation of radiology reports, and management.

METHODS:

30 questions were posed to ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 three times in three separate chat sessions. Responses were scored as correct, incorrect, or clinically misleading categories by three observers-two board certified cardiologists and one board certified radiologist with cardiac imaging subspecialization. Consistency of responses across the three sessions was also evaluated. Final categorization was based on majority vote between at least two of the three observers.

RESULTS:

ChatGPT-3.5 answered seventeen of twenty eight questions correctly (61 %) by majority vote. Twenty one of twenty eight questions were answered correctly (75 %) by ChatGPT-4 by majority vote. Majority vote for correctness was not achieved for two questions. Twenty six of thirty questions were answered consistently by ChatGPT-3.5 (87 %). Twenty nine of thirty questions were answered consistently by ChatGPT-4 (97 %). ChatGPT-3.5 had both consistent and correct responses to seventeen of twenty eight questions (61 %). ChatGPT-4 had both consistent and correct responses to twenty of twenty eight questions (71 %).

CONCLUSION:

ChatGPT-4 had overall better performance than ChatGTP-3.5 when answering cardiac imaging questions with regard to correctness and consistency of responses. While both ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 answers over half of cardiac imaging questions correctly, inaccurate, clinically misleading and inconsistent responses suggest the need for further refinement before its application for educating patients about cardiac imaging.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Inteligência Artificial Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Imaging Assunto da revista: DIAGNOSTICO POR IMAGEM Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Inteligência Artificial Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Imaging Assunto da revista: DIAGNOSTICO POR IMAGEM Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos
...