ArticleDigital health
The potential of ChatGPT as an artificial intelligence enhancement therapy consultant for patients with breast cancer.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: OpenAI developed ChatGPT as an advanced artificial intelligence (AI)-driven natural language processing system. ChatGPT is capable of generating responses through statistical pattern recognition established during pretraining. Objective: To ascertain whether ChatGPT could respond to patients with breast cancer in a way that was consistent with evidence-based medical practices and a breast cancer clinical guideline. This guideline was a practical pocket book based on the latest evidence and took into account the national data, and to evaluate the ability of AI to provide accurate and up-to-date information to patients, potentially serving as a supplementary resource for medical professionals. Methods: The research team designed a series of tests to assess the responses of ChatGPT to specific questions related to breast cancer diagnosis, treatment options, and post-treatment care. Thirty clinically validated breast cancer questions spanning diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and pharmacotherapy were administered through three iterative trials to: (1) GPT-3.5/GPT-4.0 (5min interval between trials) and (2) three breast surgeons stratified by expertise (high/medium/low). Responses were scored dichotomously (1 = guideline-consistent; 0 = inconsistent) with total scores ranging 0 to 3 per question. For each consistent and inconsistent answer with the standard answer, 1 and 0 points were given, respectively. The sum of the answers obtained from the three experts resulted in a score of 0 to 3. Data analysis included mean score comparisons (analysis of variance with Results: Performance comparison between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 across breast surgery subspecialties and question types revealed that GPT-4.0 generally outperformed GPT-3.5, despite the absence of significant difference in the mean scores for most items. We found that GPT-3.5 and have the same medical response ability as lower qualified breast surgeons, while GPT-4.0 have the same ability as higher qualified breast surgeons.
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.