ChatGPT-4 Knows Its A B C D E but Cannot Cite Its Source.

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS JBJS Open Access Pub Date : 2024-09-05 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00099
Diane Ghanem, Alexander R Zhu, Whitney Kagabo, Greg Osgood, Babar Shafiq
{"title":"ChatGPT-4 Knows Its A B C D E but Cannot Cite Its Source.","authors":"Diane Ghanem, Alexander R Zhu, Whitney Kagabo, Greg Osgood, Babar Shafiq","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The artificial intelligence language model Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) has shown potential as a reliable and accessible educational resource in orthopaedic surgery. Yet, the accuracy of the references behind the provided information remains elusive, which poses a concern for maintaining the integrity of medical content. This study aims to examine the accuracy of the references provided by ChatGPT-4 concerning the Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure (ABCDE) approach in trauma surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two independent reviewers critically assessed 30 ChatGPT-4-generated references supporting the well-established ABCDE approach to trauma protocol, grading them as 0 (nonexistent), 1 (inaccurate), or 2 (accurate). All discrepancies between the ChatGPT-4 and PubMed references were carefully reviewed and bolded. Cohen's Kappa coefficient was used to examine the agreement of the accuracy scores of the ChatGPT-4-generated references between reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the mean reference accuracy scores. To compare the variance of the means across the 5 categories, one-way analysis of variance was used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT-4 had an average reference accuracy score of 66.7%. Of the 30 references, only 43.3% were accurate and deemed \"true\" while 56.7% were categorized as \"false\" (43.3% inaccurate and 13.3% nonexistent). The accuracy was consistent across the 5 trauma protocol categories, with no significant statistical difference (p = 0.437).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>With 57% of references being inaccurate or nonexistent, ChatGPT-4 has fallen short in providing reliable and reproducible references-a concerning finding for the safety of using ChatGPT-4 for professional medical decision making without thorough verification. Only if used cautiously, with cross-referencing, can this language model act as an adjunct learning tool that can enhance comprehensiveness as well as knowledge rehearsal and manipulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":36492,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Open Access","volume":"9 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11368215/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Open Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The artificial intelligence language model Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) has shown potential as a reliable and accessible educational resource in orthopaedic surgery. Yet, the accuracy of the references behind the provided information remains elusive, which poses a concern for maintaining the integrity of medical content. This study aims to examine the accuracy of the references provided by ChatGPT-4 concerning the Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure (ABCDE) approach in trauma surgery.

Methods: Two independent reviewers critically assessed 30 ChatGPT-4-generated references supporting the well-established ABCDE approach to trauma protocol, grading them as 0 (nonexistent), 1 (inaccurate), or 2 (accurate). All discrepancies between the ChatGPT-4 and PubMed references were carefully reviewed and bolded. Cohen's Kappa coefficient was used to examine the agreement of the accuracy scores of the ChatGPT-4-generated references between reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the mean reference accuracy scores. To compare the variance of the means across the 5 categories, one-way analysis of variance was used.

Results: ChatGPT-4 had an average reference accuracy score of 66.7%. Of the 30 references, only 43.3% were accurate and deemed "true" while 56.7% were categorized as "false" (43.3% inaccurate and 13.3% nonexistent). The accuracy was consistent across the 5 trauma protocol categories, with no significant statistical difference (p = 0.437).

Discussion: With 57% of references being inaccurate or nonexistent, ChatGPT-4 has fallen short in providing reliable and reproducible references-a concerning finding for the safety of using ChatGPT-4 for professional medical decision making without thorough verification. Only if used cautiously, with cross-referencing, can this language model act as an adjunct learning tool that can enhance comprehensiveness as well as knowledge rehearsal and manipulation.

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
ChatGPT-4 知道它的 A B C D E,但不能引用它的来源。
前言人工智能语言模型 "聊天生成预训练转换器"(ChatGPT)已显示出作为可靠、易用的矫形外科教育资源的潜力。然而,所提供信息背后参考文献的准确性仍然难以确定,这对维护医疗内容的完整性构成了威胁。本研究旨在检查 ChatGPT-4 提供的有关创伤外科气道、呼吸、循环、残疾、暴露(ABCDE)方法的参考文献的准确性:方法: 两位独立审稿人严格评估了 ChatGPT-4 生成的 30 篇参考文献,这些参考文献支持创伤方案中行之有效的 ABCDE 方法,并将其分为 0(不存在)、1(不准确)或 2(准确)三个等级。我们仔细审查了 ChatGPT-4 和 PubMed 参考文献之间的所有差异,并用粗体标出。科恩卡帕系数(Cohen's Kappa coefficient)用于检查审稿人之间对 ChatGPT-4 生成的参考文献准确性评分的一致性。描述性统计用于总结参考文献准确性的平均得分。为了比较 5 个类别的平均值差异,使用了单因素方差分析:ChatGPT-4 的平均参考文献准确率为 66.7%。在 30 个参考资料中,只有 43.3% 是准确的并被认为是 "真实的",而 56.7% 被归类为 "错误的"(43.3% 不准确,13.3% 不存在)。5 个创伤协议类别的准确性是一致的,没有显著的统计学差异(P = 0.437):讨论:57%的参考文献不准确或不存在,ChatGPT-4 在提供可靠和可重复的参考文献方面存在不足,这一发现令人担忧,因为未经彻底验证就将 ChatGPT-4 用于专业医疗决策的安全性将受到影响。只有谨慎使用,并进行交叉引用,该语言模型才能成为一种辅助学习工具,提高全面性以及知识演练和操作能力。
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
JBJS Open Access
JBJS Open Access Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Both-Bone Forearm Shaft Fractures Treated with Compression Plate Fixation in Adults: A Systematic Review on Adverse Events and Outcomes. Exploring the Performance of ChatGPT in an Orthopaedic Setting and Its Potential Use as an Educational Tool. Nonoperative Care Versus Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Application of a Health Economic Technique to Simulate Head-to-Head Comparisons. Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum Versus Needle Fasciotomy for Primary Metacarpophalangeal Dupuytren Contracture: Five-Year Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial. Reoperation Rate After Posterior Spinal Fusion Varies Significantly by Lenke Type.
×
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