Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39172169›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2024

Comparing ChatGPT and a Single Anesthesiologist's Responses to Common Patient Questions: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey of a Panel of Anesthesiologists.

Frederick H Kuo, Jamie L Fierstein, Brant H Tudor, Geoffrey M Gray, Luis M Ahumada, Scott C Watkins, Mohamed A Rehman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Frederick H KuoDepartment of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, 601 5th St South, Suite C725, St Petersburg, FL, 33701, USA. frederick.kuo@jhmi.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5983-1370
Jamie L FiersteinEpidemiology and Biostatistics Shared Resource, Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, St Petersburg, FL, USA.
Brant H TudorCenter for Pediatric Data Science and Analytics Methodology, Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, St Petersburg, FL, USA.
Geoffrey M GrayCenter for Pediatric Data Science and Analytics Methodology, Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, St Petersburg, FL, USA.
Luis M AhumadaCenter for Pediatric Data Science and Analytics Methodology, Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, St Petersburg, FL, USA.
Scott C WatkinsDepartment of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, 601 5th St South, Suite C725, St Petersburg, FL, 33701, USA.
Mohamed A RehmanDepartment of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, 601 5th St South, Suite C725, St Petersburg, FL, 33701, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increased patient access to electronic medical records and resources has resulted in higher volumes of health-related questions posed to clinical staff, while physicians' rising clinical workloads have resulted in less time for comprehensive, thoughtful responses to patient questions. Artificial intelligence chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT could help anesthesiologists efficiently respond to electronic patient inquiries, but their ability to do so is unclear. A cross-sectional exploratory survey-based study comprised of 100 anesthesia-related patient question/response sets based on two fictitious simple clinical scenarios was performed. Each question was answered by an independent board-certified anesthesiologist and ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 model, August 3, 2023 version). The responses were randomized and evaluated via survey by three blinded board-certified anesthesiologists for various quality and empathy measures. On a 5-point Likert scale, ChatGPT received similar overall quality ratings (4.2 vs. 4.1, p = .81) and significantly higher overall empathy ratings (3.7 vs. 3.4, p < .01) compared to the anesthesiologist. ChatGPT underperformed the anesthesiologist regarding rate of responses in agreement with scientific consensus (96.6% vs. 99.3%, p = .02) and possibility of harm (4.7% vs. 1.7%, p = .04), but performed similarly in other measures (percentage of responses with inappropriate/incorrect information (5.7% vs. 2.7%, p = .07) and missing information (10.0% vs. 7.0%, p = .19)). In conclusion, LLMs show great potential in healthcare, but additional improvement is needed to decrease the risk of patient harm and reduce the need for close physician oversight. Further research with more complex clinical scenarios, clinicians, and live patients is necessary to validate their role in healthcare.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologistsAnesthesiologyArtificial IntelligenceCross-Sectional StudiesElectronic Health RecordsEmpathyFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesAnesthesiologyArtificial intelligenceChatGPTLarge language modelsPatient questionsWorkload

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.