ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2024
Evaluating GPT-4 as an academic support tool for clinicians: a comparative analysis of case records from the literature.
Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP) advancements have led to sophisticated tools like GPT-4.0, allowing clinicians to explore its utility as a health care management support tool. Our study aimed to assess the capability of GPT-4 in suggesting definitive diagnoses and appropriate work-ups to minimize unnecessary procedures. Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective comparative analysis, extracting clinical data from 10 cases published in the Results: The AI could not identify the definitive diagnosis in 2 out of 10 cases (20% inaccuracy). Among the eight cases correctly identified by the AI, five (63%) listed the definitive diagnosis at the top of the differential diagnosis list. In terms of diagnostic tests and exams, the AI suggested unnecessary procedures in two cases, representing 40% of the cases where it failed to correctly identify the final diagnosis. Moreover, the AI could not suggest adequate treatment for seven cases (70%). Among them, the AI suggested inappropriate management for two cases, and the remaining five received incomplete or non-specific advice, such as chemotherapy, without specifying the best regimen. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated GPT-4's potential as an academic support tool, although it cannot correctly identify the final diagnosis in 20% of the cases and the AI requested unnecessary additional diagnostic tests for 40% of the patients. Future research should focus on evaluating the performance of GPT-4 using a more extensive and diverse sample, incorporating prospective assessments, and investigating its ability to improve diagnostic and therapeutic accuracy.
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.