ArticleDie Anaesthesiologie2024
[ChatGPT for use in technology-enhanced learning in anesthesiology and emergency medicine and potential clinical application of AI language models : Between hype and reality around artificial intelligence in medical use].
Article in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe utilization of AI language models in education and academia is currently a subject of research, and applications in clinical settings are also being tested. Studies conducted by various research groups have demonstrated that language models can answer questions related to medical board examinations, and there are potential applications of these models in medical education as well. RESEARCH QUESTION: This study aims to investigate the extent to which current version language models prove effective for addressing medical inquiries, their potential utility in medical education, and the challenges that still exist in the functioning of AI language models.
methodThe program ChatGPT, based on GPT 3.5, had to answer 1025 questions from the second part (M2) of the medical board examination. The study examined whether any errors and what types of errors occurred. Additionally, the language model was asked to generate essays on the learning objectives outlined in the standard curriculum for specialist training in anesthesiology and the supplementary qualification in emergency medicine. These essays were analyzed afterwards and checked for errors and anomalies.
resultsThe findings indicated that ChatGPT was able to correctly answer the questions with an accuracy rate exceeding 69%, even when the questions included references to visual aids. This represented an improvement in the accuracy of answering board examination questions compared to a study conducted in March; however, when it came to generating essays a high error rate was observed. DISCUSSION: Considering the current pace of ongoing improvements in AI language models, widespread clinical implementation, especially in emergency departments as well as emergency and intensive care medicine with the assistance of medical trainees, is a plausible scenario. These models can provide insights to support medical professionals in their work, without relying solely on the language model. Although the use of these models in education holds promise, it currently requires a significant amount of supervision. Due to hallucinations caused by inadequate training environments for the language model, the generated texts might deviate from the current state of scientific knowledge. Direct deployment in patient care settings without permanent physician supervision does not yet appear to be achievable at present.
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.