Accuracy and consistency of publicly available Large Language Models as clinical decision support tools for the management of colon cancer.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Journal of Surgical Oncology Pub Date : 2024-08-19 DOI:10.1002/jso.27821
Kristen N Kaiser, Alexa J Hughes, Anthony D Yang, Anita A Turk, Sanjay Mohanty, Andrew A Gonzalez, Rachel E Patzer, Karl Y Bilimoria, Ryan J Ellis
{"title":"Accuracy and consistency of publicly available Large Language Models as clinical decision support tools for the management of colon cancer.","authors":"Kristen N Kaiser, Alexa J Hughes, Anthony D Yang, Anita A Turk, Sanjay Mohanty, Andrew A Gonzalez, Rachel E Patzer, Karl Y Bilimoria, Ryan J Ellis","doi":"10.1002/jso.27821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Large Language Models (LLM; e.g., ChatGPT) may be used to assist clinicians and form the basis of future clinical decision support (CDS) for colon cancer. The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate the response accuracy of two LLM-powered interfaces in identifying guideline-based care in simulated clinical scenarios and (2) define response variation between and within LLMs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinical scenarios with \"next steps in management\" queries were developed based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Prompts were entered into OpenAI ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot in independent sessions, yielding four responses per scenario. Responses were compared to clinician-developed responses and assessed for accuracy, consistency, and verbosity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 108 responses to 27 prompts, both platforms yielded completely correct responses to 36% of scenarios (n = 39). For ChatGPT, 39% (n = 21) were missing information and 24% (n = 14) contained inaccurate/misleading information. Copilot performed similarly, with 37% (n = 20) having missing information and 28% (n = 15) containing inaccurate/misleading information (p = 0.96). Clinician responses were significantly shorter (34 ± 15.5 words) than both ChatGPT (251 ± 86 words) and Copilot (271 ± 67 words; both p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Publicly available LLM applications often provide verbose responses with vague or inaccurate information regarding colon cancer management. Significant optimization is required before use in formal CDS.</p>","PeriodicalId":17111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.27821","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Large Language Models (LLM; e.g., ChatGPT) may be used to assist clinicians and form the basis of future clinical decision support (CDS) for colon cancer. The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate the response accuracy of two LLM-powered interfaces in identifying guideline-based care in simulated clinical scenarios and (2) define response variation between and within LLMs.

Methods: Clinical scenarios with "next steps in management" queries were developed based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Prompts were entered into OpenAI ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot in independent sessions, yielding four responses per scenario. Responses were compared to clinician-developed responses and assessed for accuracy, consistency, and verbosity.

Results: Across 108 responses to 27 prompts, both platforms yielded completely correct responses to 36% of scenarios (n = 39). For ChatGPT, 39% (n = 21) were missing information and 24% (n = 14) contained inaccurate/misleading information. Copilot performed similarly, with 37% (n = 20) having missing information and 28% (n = 15) containing inaccurate/misleading information (p = 0.96). Clinician responses were significantly shorter (34 ± 15.5 words) than both ChatGPT (251 ± 86 words) and Copilot (271 ± 67 words; both p < 0.01).

Conclusions: Publicly available LLM applications often provide verbose responses with vague or inaccurate information regarding colon cancer management. Significant optimization is required before use in formal CDS.

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
将公开可用的大型语言模型作为结肠癌管理的临床决策支持工具的准确性和一致性。
背景:大型语言模型(LLM;如 ChatGPT)可用于协助临床医生,并构成未来结肠癌临床决策支持(CDS)的基础。本研究的目的是:(1) 评估两个由 LLM 驱动的界面在模拟临床场景中识别基于指南的护理时的响应准确性;(2) 确定 LLM 之间和 LLM 内部的响应差异:方法:根据美国国家综合癌症网络指南开发了带有 "下一步管理 "查询的临床场景。在独立会话中将提示输入 OpenAI ChatGPT 和 Microsoft Copilot,每个场景产生四个回复。将回答与临床医生开发的回答进行比较,并评估其准确性、一致性和冗长度:在对 27 个提示做出的 108 个回答中,两个平台都对 36% 的情景做出了完全正确的回答(n = 39)。对于 ChatGPT,39%(n = 21)的回答缺少信息,24%(n = 14)的回答包含不准确/误导性信息。Copilot 的情况类似,37%(n = 20)的情景缺失信息,28%(n = 15)的情景包含不准确/误导性信息(p = 0.96)。临床医生的回答(34 ± 15.5 个字)明显短于 ChatGPT(251 ± 86 个字)和 Copilot(271 ± 67 个字;均为 p 结论:公开可用的 LLM 应用程序通常会提供冗长的回复,其中包含模糊或不准确的结肠癌管理信息。在正式的 CDS 中使用前需要进行大量优化。
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
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
367
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Oncology offers peer-reviewed, original papers in the field of surgical oncology and broadly related surgical sciences, including reports on experimental and laboratory studies. As an international journal, the editors encourage participation from leading surgeons around the world. The JSO is the representative journal for the World Federation of Surgical Oncology Societies. Publishing 16 issues in 2 volumes each year, the journal accepts Research Articles, in-depth Reviews of timely interest, Letters to the Editor, and invited Editorials. Guest Editors from the JSO Editorial Board oversee multiple special Seminars issues each year. These Seminars include multifaceted Reviews on a particular topic or current issue in surgical oncology, which are invited from experts in the field.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Impact of Intraoperative Anesthesiology Provider Handovers on Postoperative Complications After Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) Surgery. Comment On: "Factors Influencing Prophylactic Surgical Intervention in Women With Genetic Predisposition for Breast Cancer". Impact of Preoperative Counseling and Education on Decreasing Anxiety in Patients With Gynecologic Tumors: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Care Patterns and Outcomes for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma by Rurality of Patient Residence in a Midwestern State.
×
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