Comprehensive analysis of responses from ChatGPT to consumer inquiries regarding over-the-counter medications.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL Pharmazie Pub Date : 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1691/ph.2024.3628
K Kiyomiya, T Aomori, H Ohtani
{"title":"Comprehensive analysis of responses from ChatGPT to consumer inquiries regarding over-the-counter medications.","authors":"K Kiyomiya, T Aomori, H Ohtani","doi":"10.1691/ph.2024.3628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background:</i> The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) applications such as ChatGPT is becoming increasingly popular. In Japan, consumers can purchase most over-the-counter (OTC) drugs without having to consult a pharmacist, so they may ask generative AI applications which OTC drugs they should purchase. This study aimed to systematically evaluate responses from ChatGPT to consumer inquiries about various OTC drugs. <i>Methods:</i> We selected 22 popular OTC drugs and 12 typical consumer characteristics, including physical and disease conditions and concomitant medications. We input a total of 264 questions (<i>i. e.</i>, all combinations of drugs and characteristics) to ChatGPT in Japanese, asking whether it is safe for consumers with each characteristic to take these OTC drugs. We used the generic name for 10 of the 22 drugs and the brand name for the remaining 12. Responses were evaluated based on the following three criteria: 1) coherence between the question and response, 2) scientific correctness, and 3) appropriateness of the instructed actions. When we received a response that satisfied all three criteria, we input the exact same question on a different day to assess reproducibility. <i>Results:</i> The proportions of ChatGPT's answers that satisfied criteria 1, 2, and 3 were 79.5%, 54.5%, and 49.6%, respectively. However, the proportion of responses that satisfied all three criteria was only 20.8% (55/264); 61.8% (34/55) of these responses were reproduced when the same question was input again on a different day. Compared with questions using generic names, those using brand names resulted in lower coherence and scientific correctness. Among the 12 characteristics, the appropriateness of the instructed actions tended to be lower in responses to questions about driving and concomitant medications. <i>Conclusions:</i> Our study revealed that ChatGPT was less accurate in its responses and less consistent in its instructed actions compared with the package inserts. Our findings suggest that Japanese consumers should not consult ChatGPT regarding OTC medications, especially when using brand names.</p>","PeriodicalId":20145,"journal":{"name":"Pharmazie","volume":"79 1","pages":"24-28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmazie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1691/ph.2024.3628","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) applications such as ChatGPT is becoming increasingly popular. In Japan, consumers can purchase most over-the-counter (OTC) drugs without having to consult a pharmacist, so they may ask generative AI applications which OTC drugs they should purchase. This study aimed to systematically evaluate responses from ChatGPT to consumer inquiries about various OTC drugs. Methods: We selected 22 popular OTC drugs and 12 typical consumer characteristics, including physical and disease conditions and concomitant medications. We input a total of 264 questions (i. e., all combinations of drugs and characteristics) to ChatGPT in Japanese, asking whether it is safe for consumers with each characteristic to take these OTC drugs. We used the generic name for 10 of the 22 drugs and the brand name for the remaining 12. Responses were evaluated based on the following three criteria: 1) coherence between the question and response, 2) scientific correctness, and 3) appropriateness of the instructed actions. When we received a response that satisfied all three criteria, we input the exact same question on a different day to assess reproducibility. Results: The proportions of ChatGPT's answers that satisfied criteria 1, 2, and 3 were 79.5%, 54.5%, and 49.6%, respectively. However, the proportion of responses that satisfied all three criteria was only 20.8% (55/264); 61.8% (34/55) of these responses were reproduced when the same question was input again on a different day. Compared with questions using generic names, those using brand names resulted in lower coherence and scientific correctness. Among the 12 characteristics, the appropriateness of the instructed actions tended to be lower in responses to questions about driving and concomitant medications. Conclusions: Our study revealed that ChatGPT was less accurate in its responses and less consistent in its instructed actions compared with the package inserts. Our findings suggest that Japanese consumers should not consult ChatGPT regarding OTC medications, especially when using brand names.

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
全面分析 ChatGPT 对消费者有关非处方药咨询的回复。
背景:生成式人工智能(AI)应用程序(如 ChatGPT)的使用正变得越来越流行。在日本,消费者无需咨询药剂师即可购买大多数非处方药(OTC),因此他们可能会询问人工智能生成应用程序应该购买哪些非处方药。本研究旨在系统评估 ChatGPT 对消费者关于各种非处方药的咨询做出的回应。研究方法我们选择了 22 种流行的非处方药和 12 种典型的消费者特征,包括身体和疾病状况以及伴随药物。我们用日语向 ChatGPT 输入了总共 264 个问题(即药物和特征的所有组合),询问具有各种特征的消费者服用这些非处方药是否安全。我们对 22 种药物中的 10 种使用了通用名称,对其余 12 种使用了品牌名称。我们根据以下三个标准对回答进行评估:1) 问题与回答之间的一致性;2) 科学正确性;3) 指导行动的适当性。当我们收到的回答符合所有三个标准时,我们会在不同的一天输入完全相同的问题,以评估重现性。结果符合标准 1、2 和 3 的 ChatGPT 回答比例分别为 79.5%、54.5% 和 49.6%。然而,符合所有三个标准的回答比例仅为 20.8%(55/264);其中 61.8%(34/55)的回答在不同的一天再次输入相同的问题时得到了重现。与使用通用名称的问题相比,使用品牌名称的问题的一致性和科学正确性较低。在 12 个特征中,有关驾驶和同时服用药物问题的回答中,指导行动的适当性往往较低。结论我们的研究表明,与包装插页相比,ChatGPT 在回答问题的准确性和指导操作的一致性方面都较差。我们的研究结果表明,日本消费者不应该就非处方药咨询 ChatGPT,尤其是在使用品牌药时。
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
Pharmazie
Pharmazie 医学-化学综合
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
1.2 months
期刊介绍: The journal DiePharmazie publishs reviews, experimental studies, letters to the editor, as well as book reviews. The following fields of pharmacy are covered: Pharmaceutical and medicinal chemistry; Pharmaceutical analysis and drug control; Pharmaceutical technolgy; Biopharmacy (biopharmaceutics, pharmacokinetics, biotransformation); Experimental and clinical pharmacology; Pharmaceutical biology (pharmacognosy); Clinical pharmacy; History of pharmacy.
期刊最新文献
Analysis of progression-free and overall survival in ovarian cancer: Bevacizumab treatment outcomes using historical cohort. Comparison of pharmacotherapeutic analgesic response and safety profile of tapentadol with other opioids. Cross-reactivity of triptans and sulfonamide antibiotics - a clinically relevant question? Impact of medication reconciliation and medication reviews on the incidence of preventable adverse drug reactions during hospitalization of elderly patients. A randomized controlled trial. Potential effects of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medication on body height and body weight in a longitudinal pediatric cohort study, the LIFE Child study.
×
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