ArticleResearch square2023
From Answers to Insights: Unveiling the Strengths and Limitations of ChatGPT and Biomedical Knowledge Graphs.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.