Qiuhong Wei , Zhengxiong Yao , Ying Cui , Bo Wei , Zhezhen Jin , Ximing Xu
{"title":"Evaluation of ChatGPT-generated medical responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Qiuhong Wei , Zhengxiong Yao , Ying Cui , Bo Wei , Zhezhen Jin , Ximing Xu","doi":"10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are increasingly explored in medical domains. However, the absence of standard guidelines for performance evaluation has led to methodological inconsistencies. This study aims to summarize the available evidence on evaluating ChatGPT’s performance in answering medical questions and provide direction for future research.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>An extensive literature search was conducted on June 15, 2023, across ten medical databases. The keyword used was “ChatGPT,” without restrictions on publication type, language, or date. Studies evaluating ChatGPT's performance in answering medical questions were included. Exclusions comprised review articles, comments, patents, non-medical evaluations of ChatGPT, and preprint studies. Data was extracted on general study characteristics, question sources, conversation processes, assessment metrics, and performance of ChatGPT. An evaluation framework for LLM in medical inquiries was proposed by integrating insights from selected literature. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023456327.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 3520 articles were identified, of which 60 were reviewed and summarized in this paper and 17 were included in the <em>meta</em>-analysis. ChatGPT displayed an overall integrated accuracy of 56 % (95 % CI: 51 %–60 %, I<sup>2</sup> = 87 %) in addressing medical queries. However, the studies varied in question resource, question-asking process, and evaluation metrics. As per our proposed evaluation framework, many studies failed to report methodological details, such as the date of inquiry, version of ChatGPT, and inter-rater consistency.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This review reveals ChatGPT's potential in addressing medical inquiries, but the heterogeneity of the study design and insufficient reporting might affect the results’ reliability. Our proposed evaluation framework provides insights for the future study design and transparent reporting of LLM in responding to medical questions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15263,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomedical Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomedical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046424000388","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are increasingly explored in medical domains. However, the absence of standard guidelines for performance evaluation has led to methodological inconsistencies. This study aims to summarize the available evidence on evaluating ChatGPT’s performance in answering medical questions and provide direction for future research.
Methods
An extensive literature search was conducted on June 15, 2023, across ten medical databases. The keyword used was “ChatGPT,” without restrictions on publication type, language, or date. Studies evaluating ChatGPT's performance in answering medical questions were included. Exclusions comprised review articles, comments, patents, non-medical evaluations of ChatGPT, and preprint studies. Data was extracted on general study characteristics, question sources, conversation processes, assessment metrics, and performance of ChatGPT. An evaluation framework for LLM in medical inquiries was proposed by integrating insights from selected literature. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023456327.
Results
A total of 3520 articles were identified, of which 60 were reviewed and summarized in this paper and 17 were included in the meta-analysis. ChatGPT displayed an overall integrated accuracy of 56 % (95 % CI: 51 %–60 %, I2 = 87 %) in addressing medical queries. However, the studies varied in question resource, question-asking process, and evaluation metrics. As per our proposed evaluation framework, many studies failed to report methodological details, such as the date of inquiry, version of ChatGPT, and inter-rater consistency.
Conclusion
This review reveals ChatGPT's potential in addressing medical inquiries, but the heterogeneity of the study design and insufficient reporting might affect the results’ reliability. Our proposed evaluation framework provides insights for the future study design and transparent reporting of LLM in responding to medical questions.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Biomedical Informatics reflects a commitment to high-quality original research papers, reviews, and commentaries in the area of biomedical informatics methodology. Although we publish articles motivated by applications in the biomedical sciences (for example, clinical medicine, health care, population health, and translational bioinformatics), the journal emphasizes reports of new methodologies and techniques that have general applicability and that form the basis for the evolving science of biomedical informatics. Articles on medical devices; evaluations of implemented systems (including clinical trials of information technologies); or papers that provide insight into a biological process, a specific disease, or treatment options would generally be more suitable for publication in other venues. Papers on applications of signal processing and image analysis are often more suitable for biomedical engineering journals or other informatics journals, although we do publish papers that emphasize the information management and knowledge representation/modeling issues that arise in the storage and use of biological signals and images. System descriptions are welcome if they illustrate and substantiate the underlying methodology that is the principal focus of the report and an effort is made to address the generalizability and/or range of application of that methodology. Note also that, given the international nature of JBI, papers that deal with specific languages other than English, or with country-specific health systems or approaches, are acceptable for JBI only if they offer generalizable lessons that are relevant to the broad JBI readership, regardless of their country, language, culture, or health system.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
