Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38227363›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2024

A Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-Powered Chatbot as a Simulated Patient to Practice History Taking: Prospective, Mixed Methods Study.

Friederike Holderried, Christian Stegemann-Philipps, Lea Herschbach, Julia-Astrid Moldt, Andrew Nevins, Jan Griewatz, Martin Holderried, Anne Herrmann-Werner, Teresa Festl-Wietek, Moritz Mahling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Friederike HolderriedTübingen Institute for Medical Education, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1828-0920
Christian Stegemann-PhilippsTübingen Institute for Medical Education, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8122-5724
Lea HerschbachTübingen Institute for Medical Education, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0005-6378-5073
Julia-Astrid MoldtTübingen Institute for Medical Education, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2418-150X
Andrew NevinsDivision of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0009-9937-9025
Jan GriewatzTübingen Institute for Medical Education, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9731-3171
Martin HolderriedDepartment of Medical Development, Process and Quality Management, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1337-0516
Anne Herrmann-WernerTübingen Institute for Medical Education, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2413-7047
Teresa Festl-WietekTübingen Institute for Medical Education, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1450-1757
Moritz MahlingTübingen Institute for Medical Education, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7960-4015

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunication is a core competency of medical professionals and of utmost importance for patient safety. Although medical curricula emphasize communication training, traditional formats, such as real or simulated patient interactions, can present psychological stress and are limited in repetition. The recent emergence of large language models (LLMs), such as generative pretrained transformer (GPT), offers an opportunity to overcome these restrictions.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a GPT-driven chatbot to practice history taking, one of the core competencies of communication.

methodsWe developed an interactive chatbot interface using GPT-3.5 and a specific prompt including a chatbot-optimized illness script and a behavioral component. Following a mixed methods approach, we invited medical students to voluntarily practice history taking. To determine whether GPT provides suitable answers as a simulated patient, the conversations were recorded and analyzed using quantitative and qualitative approaches. We analyzed the extent to which the questions and answers aligned with the provided script, as well as the medical plausibility of the answers. Finally, the students filled out the Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ).

resultsA total of 28 students practiced with our chatbot (mean age 23.4, SD 2.9 years). We recorded a total of 826 question-answer pairs (QAPs), with a median of 27.5 QAPs per conversation and 94.7% (n=782) pertaining to history taking. When questions were explicitly covered by the script (n=502, 60.3%), the GPT-provided answers were mostly based on explicit script information (n=471, 94.4%). For questions not covered by the script (n=195, 23.4%), the GPT answers used 56.4% (n=110) fictitious information. Regarding plausibility, 842 (97.9%) of 860 QAPs were rated as plausible. Of the 14 (2.1%) implausible answers, GPT provided answers rated as socially desirable, leaving role identity, ignoring script information, illogical reasoning, and calculation error. Despite these results, the CUQ revealed an overall positive user experience (77/100 points).

conclusionsOur data showed that LLMs, such as GPT, can provide a simulated patient experience and yield a good user experience and a majority of plausible answers. Our analysis revealed that GPT-provided answers use either explicit script information or are based on available information, which can be understood as abductive reasoning. Although rare, the GPT-based chatbot provides implausible information in some instances, with the major tendency being socially desirable instead of medically plausible information.

Indexed as

CommunicationStudents, MedicalAdultHumansLanguageMedical History TakingProspective StudiesYoung Adultansweranswersartificial intelligencechatbotchatbotsChatGPTconversational agentconversational agentsdocumentationgenerative pretrained transformerGPThistoryhistory takinghuman computerhuman machineinteractivemedical educationnatural language processingNLPresponseresponsessatisfactionsimulatedsimulated patientsimulationsimulationsusability

Identifiers

PMID38227363
PMCPMC10828948

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.