Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39198356›Full record

ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2024

Performance of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 as a tool for patient support before and after DBS surgery for Parkinson's disease.

Ana Lúcia Oliveira, Miguel Coelho, Leonor Correia Guedes, Maria Begoña Cattoni, Herculano Carvalho, Pedro Duarte-Batista

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Ana Lúcia OliveiraDepartment of Neurology, Hospital de Vila Franca de Xira, Lisbon, Portugal. ana.b.oliveira@ulsetejo.min-saude.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4005-4591
Miguel CoelhoDepartment of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Neurology, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, Portugal.
Leonor Correia GuedesDepartment of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Neurology, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8422-0494
Maria Begoña CattoniDepartment of Neurosurgery, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, Portugal.
Herculano CarvalhoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, Portugal.
Pedro Duarte-BatistaDepartment of Neurology, Hospital de Vila Franca de Xira, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4436-4485

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neurosurgical procedure that involves implanting electrodes into specific areas of the brain to treat a variety of medical conditions, including Parkinson's disease. Doubts and questions from patients prior to or following surgery should be addressed in line with the most recent scientific and clinical practice. ChatGPT emerges as an example of how artificial intelligence can be used, with its ability to comprehend and answer medical questions in an understandable way, accessible to everyone. However, the risks of these resources still need to be fully understood.ChatGPT models 3.5 and 4 responses to 40 questions in English and Portuguese were independently graded by two experienced specialists in functional neurosurgery and neurological movement disorders and resolved by a third reviewer. ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 demonstrated a good level of accuracy in responding to 80 questions in both English and Portuguese, related to DBS surgery for Parkinson's disease. The proportion of responses graded as correct was 57.5% and 83.8% for GPT 3.5 and GPT 4, respectively. GPT 3.5 provided potentially harmful answers for 6.3% (5/80) of its responses. No responses from GPT 4 were graded as harmful. In general, ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 demonstrated good performance in terms of quality and reliability across two different languages. Nonetheless, harmful responses should not be scorned, and it's crucial to consider this aspect when addressing patients using these resources. Considering the current safety concerns, it's not advisable for patients to use such models for DBS surgery guidance. Performance of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 as a tool for patient support before and after DBS surgery for Parkinson's disease.

Indexed as

Deep Brain StimulationParkinson DiseaseArtificial IntelligenceHumansChatGPTDeep Brain SimulationParkinson’s disease

Identifiers

PMID39198356
PMCPMC11554841

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.