Appropriateness of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Management.

Makoto Shiraishi, Haesu Lee, Koji Kanayama, Yuta Moriwaki, Mutsumi Okazaki
{"title":"Appropriateness of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Management.","authors":"Makoto Shiraishi, Haesu Lee, Koji Kanayama, Yuta Moriwaki, Mutsumi Okazaki","doi":"10.1177/15347346241236811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Type 2 diabetes is a significant global health concern. It often causes diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), which affect millions of people and increase amputation and mortality rates. Despite existing guidelines, the complexity of DFU treatment makes clinical decisions challenging. Large language models such as chat generative pretrained transformer (ChatGPT), which are adept at natural language processing, have emerged as valuable resources in the medical field. However, concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the information they provide remain. We aimed to assess the accuracy of various artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, including ChatGPT, in providing information on DFUs based on established guidelines. Seven AI chatbots were asked clinical questions (CQs) based on the DFU guidelines. Their responses were analyzed for accuracy in terms of answers to CQs, grade of recommendation, level of evidence, and agreement with the reference, including verification of the authenticity of the references provided by the chatbots. The AI chatbots showed a mean accuracy of 91.2% in answers to CQs, with discrepancies noted in grade of recommendation and level of evidence. Claude-2 outperformed other chatbots in the number of verified references (99.6%), whereas ChatGPT had the lowest rate of reference authenticity (66.3%). This study highlights the potential of AI chatbots as tools for disseminating medical information and demonstrates their high degree of accuracy in answering CQs related to DFUs. However, the variability in the accuracy of these chatbots and problems like AI hallucinations necessitate cautious use and further optimization for medical applications. This study underscores the evolving role of AI in healthcare and the importance of refining these technologies for effective use in clinical decision-making and patient education.</p>","PeriodicalId":94229,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346241236811","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Type 2 diabetes is a significant global health concern. It often causes diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), which affect millions of people and increase amputation and mortality rates. Despite existing guidelines, the complexity of DFU treatment makes clinical decisions challenging. Large language models such as chat generative pretrained transformer (ChatGPT), which are adept at natural language processing, have emerged as valuable resources in the medical field. However, concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the information they provide remain. We aimed to assess the accuracy of various artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, including ChatGPT, in providing information on DFUs based on established guidelines. Seven AI chatbots were asked clinical questions (CQs) based on the DFU guidelines. Their responses were analyzed for accuracy in terms of answers to CQs, grade of recommendation, level of evidence, and agreement with the reference, including verification of the authenticity of the references provided by the chatbots. The AI chatbots showed a mean accuracy of 91.2% in answers to CQs, with discrepancies noted in grade of recommendation and level of evidence. Claude-2 outperformed other chatbots in the number of verified references (99.6%), whereas ChatGPT had the lowest rate of reference authenticity (66.3%). This study highlights the potential of AI chatbots as tools for disseminating medical information and demonstrates their high degree of accuracy in answering CQs related to DFUs. However, the variability in the accuracy of these chatbots and problems like AI hallucinations necessitate cautious use and further optimization for medical applications. This study underscores the evolving role of AI in healthcare and the importance of refining these technologies for effective use in clinical decision-making and patient education.

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
人工智能聊天机器人在糖尿病足溃疡管理中的适用性。
2 型糖尿病是一个重大的全球健康问题。它通常会导致糖尿病足溃疡(DFU),影响数百万人,并增加截肢率和死亡率。尽管已有指南,但 DFU 治疗的复杂性使临床决策面临挑战。聊天生成预训练转换器(ChatGPT)等擅长自然语言处理的大型语言模型已成为医疗领域的宝贵资源。然而,这些模型所提供信息的准确性和可靠性仍然令人担忧。我们旨在评估包括 ChatGPT 在内的各种人工智能(AI)聊天机器人根据既定指南提供 DFU 信息的准确性。我们根据 DFU 指南向七个人工智能聊天机器人提出了临床问题(CQ)。分析了聊天机器人回答 CQs 的准确性、推荐等级、证据级别以及与参考文献的一致性,包括验证聊天机器人提供的参考文献的真实性。人工智能聊天机器人回答 CQ 的平均准确率为 91.2%,但在推荐等级和证据等级方面存在差异。Claude-2 在经过验证的参考文献数量(99.6%)方面优于其他聊天机器人,而 ChatGPT 的参考文献真实性率最低(66.3%)。这项研究凸显了人工智能聊天机器人作为医疗信息传播工具的潜力,并证明其在回答与 DFU 相关的 CQ 时具有很高的准确性。然而,由于这些聊天机器人的准确性存在差异,并且存在人工智能幻觉等问题,因此有必要谨慎使用并进一步优化医疗应用。这项研究强调了人工智能在医疗保健领域不断发展的作用,以及完善这些技术以有效用于临床决策和患者教育的重要性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Comparative Efficacy of Stem Cells Therapy for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Healing. Analysis of Genetic Risk Factors Associated with Charcot Foot Based on the FinnGen Study R9 Data: A Wide-angle Mendelian Randomization Study. Manifestations of Endocrine Disease in the Lower Extremities: Beyond the Diabetic Foot. Evolving Strategies in the Management of Venous Leg Ulcers. Early Tissue Resection Versus Watchful Waiting After Revascularization for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Meta-Analysis.
×
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