ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Evaluating ChatGPT's accuracy in predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting risk and antiemetic prophylaxis planning: A study on simulated patient profiles.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a distressing condition following general anesthesia. The Apfel Simplified Score (SRS) is used to calculate the score and guide antiemetic prophylaxis as per Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) guidelines. The use of generative AI models in exploring the risk calculation and guiding antiemetic prophylaxis remains unexplored. Objective: The study aims to investigate the accuracy of ChatGPT 4.0 unpaid version in determining the Apfel score and its adherence to the SAMBA antiemetic prophylaxis guideline recommendations using simulated patient profiles. Methodology: Our study was conducted in the Department of Anesthesiology on 100 simulated patient profiles. The study was completed in 2 months after approval by the Institutional Review Board of Dow University of Health Sciences. Data were collected and analyzed using SPSS. A pilot study was conducted to determine the sample size for the study. The simulated profiles were generated by the researchers, and then ChatGPT was asked to calculate their Apfel scores. Experienced anesthesiologists were asked to calculate the same variables for the profiles, but they were blinded to ChatGPT's responses. Results: Among 100 simulated patient profiles, 99 profiles were scored correctly by ChatGPT and showed near-perfect agreement with anesthesiologists (Cohen's κ = 0.975, Conclusion: ChatGPT can be reliably used to determine the correct Apfel score of the patients, and it can accurately classify patients into risk categories. However, its recommendations of antiemetic agents as per the SAMBA guidelines are inconsistent, necessitating human oversight for guideline-based management. Such large language models can be used as adjuncts in perioperative assessments and cannot replace human judgment.
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.