Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37577545›Full record

ArticleResearch square2023

From Answers to Insights: Unveiling the Strengths and Limitations of ChatGPT and Biomedical Knowledge Graphs.

Yu Hou, Jeremy Yeung, Hua Xu, Chang Su, Fei Wang, Rui Zhang

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in Research square, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yu HouUniversity of Minnesota.
Jeremy YeungUniversity of Minnesota.
Hua XuYale University.
Chang SuTemple University.
Fei WangWeill Cornell Medicine.
Rui ZhangUniversity of Minnesota.

Funding

Detecting synergistic effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for AD/ADRDR01AG078154 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI HUA XU, RUI ZHANG · 2022 to 2026
$4.2M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG078154
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown exceptional performance in various natural language processing tasks, benefiting from their language generation capabilities and ability to acquire knowledge from unstructured text. However, in the biomedical domain, LLMs face limitations that lead to inaccurate and inconsistent answers. Knowledge Graphs (KGs) have emerged as valuable resources for organizing structured information. Biomedical Knowledge Graphs (BKGs) have gained significant attention for managing diverse and large-scale biomedical knowledge. The objective of this study is to assess and compare the capabilities of ChatGPT and existing BKGs in question-answering, biomedical knowledge discovery, and reasoning tasks within the biomedical domain. Methods: We conducted a series of experiments to assess the performance of ChatGPT and the BKGs in various aspects of querying existing biomedical knowledge, knowledge discovery, and knowledge reasoning. Firstly, we tasked ChatGPT with answering questions sourced from the "Alternative Medicine" sub-category of Yahoo! Answers and recorded the responses. Additionally, we queried BKG to retrieve the relevant knowledge records corresponding to the questions and assessed them manually. In another experiment, we formulated a prediction scenario to assess ChatGPT's ability to suggest potential drug/dietary supplement repurposing candidates. Simultaneously, we utilized BKG to perform link prediction for the same task. The outcomes of ChatGPT and BKG were compared and analyzed. Furthermore, we evaluated ChatGPT and BKG's capabilities in establishing associations between pairs of proposed entities. This evaluation aimed to assess their reasoning abilities and the extent to which they can infer connections within the knowledge domain. Results: The results indicate that ChatGPT with GPT-4.0 outperforms both GPT-3.5 and BKGs in providing existing information. However, BKGs demonstrate higher reliability in terms of information accuracy. ChatGPT exhibits limitations in performing novel discoveries and reasoning, particularly in establishing structured links between entities compared to BKGs. Conclusions: To address the limitations observed, future research should focus on integrating LLMs and BKGs to leverage the strengths of both approaches. Such integration would optimize task performance and mitigate potential risks, leading to advancements in knowledge within the biomedical field and contributing to the overall well-being of individuals.

Indexed as

Biomedical Knowledge Graph (BKG)ChatGPTLarge Language Models (LLMs)

Identifiers

PMID37577545
PMCPMC10418534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.