Battle of the (Chat)Bots: Comparing Large Language Models to Practice Guidelines for Transfusion-Associated Graft-Versus-Host Disease Prevention

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY Transfusion Medicine Reviews Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.tmrv.2023.150753
Laura D. Stephens , Jeremy W. Jacobs , Brian D. Adkins , Garrett S. Booth
{"title":"Battle of the (Chat)Bots: Comparing Large Language Models to Practice Guidelines for Transfusion-Associated Graft-Versus-Host Disease Prevention","authors":"Laura D. Stephens ,&nbsp;Jeremy W. Jacobs ,&nbsp;Brian D. Adkins ,&nbsp;Garrett S. Booth","doi":"10.1016/j.tmrv.2023.150753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Published guidelines and clinical practices vary when defining indications for irradiation of blood components for the prevention of transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease (TA-GVHD). This study assessed irradiation indication lists generated by multiple artificial intelligence (AI) programs, or chatbots, and compared them to 2020 British Society for Haematology (BSH) practice guidelines. Four chatbots (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Bard, and Bing Chat) were prompted to list the indications for irradiation to prevent TA-GVHD. Responses were graded for concordance with BSH guidelines. Chatbot response length, discrepancies, and omissions were noted. Chatbot responses differed, but all were relevant, short in length, generally more concordant than discordant with BSH guidelines, and roughly complete. They lacked several indications listed in BSH guidelines and notably differed in their irradiation eligibility criteria for fetuses and neonates. The chatbots variably listed erroneous indications for TA-GVHD prevention, such as patients receiving blood from a donor who is of a different race or ethnicity. This study demonstrates the potential use of generative AI for transfusion medicine and hematology topics but underscores the risk of chatbot medical misinformation. Further study of risk factors for TA-GVHD, as well as the applications of chatbots in transfusion medicine and hematology, is warranted.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56081,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Medicine Reviews","volume":"37 3","pages":"Article 150753"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion Medicine Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887796323000433","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Published guidelines and clinical practices vary when defining indications for irradiation of blood components for the prevention of transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease (TA-GVHD). This study assessed irradiation indication lists generated by multiple artificial intelligence (AI) programs, or chatbots, and compared them to 2020 British Society for Haematology (BSH) practice guidelines. Four chatbots (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Bard, and Bing Chat) were prompted to list the indications for irradiation to prevent TA-GVHD. Responses were graded for concordance with BSH guidelines. Chatbot response length, discrepancies, and omissions were noted. Chatbot responses differed, but all were relevant, short in length, generally more concordant than discordant with BSH guidelines, and roughly complete. They lacked several indications listed in BSH guidelines and notably differed in their irradiation eligibility criteria for fetuses and neonates. The chatbots variably listed erroneous indications for TA-GVHD prevention, such as patients receiving blood from a donor who is of a different race or ethnicity. This study demonstrates the potential use of generative AI for transfusion medicine and hematology topics but underscores the risk of chatbot medical misinformation. Further study of risk factors for TA-GVHD, as well as the applications of chatbots in transfusion medicine and hematology, is warranted.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
聊天机器人之战:大型语言模型和输血相关移植物与宿主疾病预防实践指南的比较。
已发表的指南和临床实践在定义血液成分照射预防输血相关移植物抗宿主病(TA-GVHD)的适应症时各不相同。这项研究评估了多个人工智能(AI)程序或聊天机器人生成的辐照适应症列表,并将其与2020年英国血液学学会(BSH)实践指南进行了比较。提示四个聊天机器人(ChatGPT-3.5、ChatGPT-4、Bard和Bing Chat)列出辐射预防TA-GVHD的适应症。根据BSH指南对反应进行评分。注意到聊天机器人的回复长度、差异和遗漏。聊天机器人的回答各不相同,但都是相关的,篇幅短,通常与BSH指南一致而非不一致,并且大致完整。他们缺乏BSH指南中列出的几个适应症,并且在胎儿和新生儿的照射资格标准上存在显著差异。聊天机器人不同地列出了预防TA-GVHD的错误适应症,例如患者从不同种族或民族的捐赠者那里接受血液。这项研究证明了生成人工智能在输血医学和血液学主题中的潜在用途,但强调了聊天机器人医疗错误信息的风险。有必要进一步研究TA-GVHD的风险因素,以及聊天机器人在输血医学和血液学中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Transfusion Medicine Reviews
Transfusion Medicine Reviews 医学-血液学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: Transfusion Medicine Reviews provides an international forum in English for the publication of scholarly work devoted to the various sub-disciplines that comprise Transfusion Medicine including hemostasis and thrombosis and cellular therapies. The scope of the journal encompasses basic science, practical aspects, laboratory developments, clinical indications, and adverse effects.
期刊最新文献
Single vs Double-Unit Transfusion in Patients With Hematological Disorders Undergoing Chemotherapy or Stem Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Whole Blood Donor Iron Management Across Europe: Experiences and Challenges in Four Blood Establishments Single-Unit Transfusion Policy in Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Less is Not Worse Ultra-Massive Transfusion: Predictors of Occurrence and In-Hospital mortality From the Australian and New Zealand Massive Transfusion Registry (ANZ-MTR) Beta-Amyloid Related Neurodegenerative and Neurovascular Diseases: Potential Implications for Transfusion Medicine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1