Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38523987›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Ethical Concerns About ChatGPT in Healthcare: A Useful Tool or the Tombstone of Original and Reflective Thinking?

Marina Z Kapsali, Efstratios Livanis, Christos Tsalikidis, Panagoula Oikonomou, Polychronis Voultsos, Aleka Tsaroucha

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
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.

Marina Z KapsaliPostgraduate Program on Bioethics, Laboratory of Bioethics, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, GRC.
Efstratios LivanisDepartment of Accounting and Finance, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, GRC.
Christos TsalikidisDepartment of General Surgery, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, GRC.
Panagoula OikonomouLaboratory of Experimental Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, GRC.
Polychronis VoultsosLaboratory of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology (Medical Law and Ethics), School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, GRC.
Aleka TsarouchaDepartment of General Surgery, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, GRC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI), the uprising technology of computer science aiming to create digital systems with human behavior and intelligence, seems to have invaded almost every field of modern life. Launched in November 2022, ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) is a textual AI application capable of creating human-like responses characterized by original language and high coherence. Although AI-based language models have demonstrated impressive capabilities in healthcare, ChatGPT has received controversial annotations from the scientific and academic communities. This chatbot already appears to have a massive impact as an educational tool for healthcare professionals and transformative potential for clinical practice and could lead to dramatic changes in scientific research. Nevertheless, rational concerns were raised regarding whether the pre-trained, AI-generated text would be a menace not only for original thinking and new scientific ideas but also for academic and research integrity, as it gets more and more difficult to distinguish its AI origin due to the coherence and fluency of the produced text. This short review aims to summarize the potential applications and the consequential implications of ChatGPT in the three critical pillars of medicine: education, research, and clinical practice. In addition, this paper discusses whether the current use of this chatbot is in compliance with the ethical principles for the safe use of AI in healthcare, as determined by the World Health Organization. Finally, this review highlights the need for an updated ethical framework and the increased vigilance of healthcare stakeholders to harvest the potential benefits and limit the imminent dangers of this new innovative technology.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencechatgpteducationethical frameworkhealthcare research

Identifiers

PMID38523987
PMCPMC10961144

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.