Generation of preoperative anaesthetic plans by ChatGPT-4.0: a mixed-method study.

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY British journal of anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.038
Michel Abdel Malek, Monique van Velzen, Albert Dahan, Chris Martini, Elske Sitsen, Elise Sarton, Martijn Boon
{"title":"Generation of preoperative anaesthetic plans by ChatGPT-4.0: a mixed-method study.","authors":"Michel Abdel Malek, Monique van Velzen, Albert Dahan, Chris Martini, Elske Sitsen, Elise Sarton, Martijn Boon","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled development of natural language algorithms capable of generating coherent texts. We evaluated the quality, validity, and safety of this generative AI in preoperative anaesthetic planning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this exploratory, single-centre, convergent mixed-method study, 10 clinical vignettes were randomly selected, and ChatGPT (OpenAI, 4.0) was prompted to create anaesthetic plans, including cardiopulmonary risk assessment, intraoperative anaesthesia technique, and postoperative management. A quantitative assessment compared these plans with those made by eight senior anaesthesia consultants. A qualitative assessment was performed by an adjudication committee through focus group discussion and thematic analysis. Agreement on cardiopulmonary risk assessment was calculated using weighted Kappa, with descriptive data representation for other outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT anaesthetic plans showed variable agreement with consultants' plans. ChatGPT, the survey panel, and adjudication committee frequently disagreed on cardiopulmonary risk estimation. The ChatGPT answers were repetitive and lacked variety, evidenced by the strong preference for general anaesthesia and absence of locoregional techniques. It also showed inconsistent choices regarding airway management, postoperative analgesia, and medication use. While some differences were not deemed clinically significant, subpar postoperative pain management advice and failure to recommend tracheal intubation for patients at high risk for pulmonary aspiration were considered inappropriate recommendations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Preoperative anaesthetic plans generated by ChatGPT did not consistently meet minimum clinical standards and were unlikely the result of clinical reasoning. Therefore, ChatGPT is currently not recommended for preoperative planning. Future large language models trained on anaesthesia-specific datasets might improve performance but should undergo vigorous evaluation before use in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.038","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled development of natural language algorithms capable of generating coherent texts. We evaluated the quality, validity, and safety of this generative AI in preoperative anaesthetic planning.

Methods: In this exploratory, single-centre, convergent mixed-method study, 10 clinical vignettes were randomly selected, and ChatGPT (OpenAI, 4.0) was prompted to create anaesthetic plans, including cardiopulmonary risk assessment, intraoperative anaesthesia technique, and postoperative management. A quantitative assessment compared these plans with those made by eight senior anaesthesia consultants. A qualitative assessment was performed by an adjudication committee through focus group discussion and thematic analysis. Agreement on cardiopulmonary risk assessment was calculated using weighted Kappa, with descriptive data representation for other outcomes.

Results: ChatGPT anaesthetic plans showed variable agreement with consultants' plans. ChatGPT, the survey panel, and adjudication committee frequently disagreed on cardiopulmonary risk estimation. The ChatGPT answers were repetitive and lacked variety, evidenced by the strong preference for general anaesthesia and absence of locoregional techniques. It also showed inconsistent choices regarding airway management, postoperative analgesia, and medication use. While some differences were not deemed clinically significant, subpar postoperative pain management advice and failure to recommend tracheal intubation for patients at high risk for pulmonary aspiration were considered inappropriate recommendations.

Conclusions: Preoperative anaesthetic plans generated by ChatGPT did not consistently meet minimum clinical standards and were unlikely the result of clinical reasoning. Therefore, ChatGPT is currently not recommended for preoperative planning. Future large language models trained on anaesthesia-specific datasets might improve performance but should undergo vigorous evaluation before use in clinical practice.

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
通过 ChatGPT-4.0 生成术前麻醉计划:一项混合方法研究。
背景:人工智能(AI)的最新进展使得能够生成连贯文本的自然语言算法得以发展。我们对这种生成式人工智能在术前麻醉计划中的质量、有效性和安全性进行了评估:在这项探索性、单中心、聚合混合方法研究中,我们随机选择了 10 个临床案例,并提示 ChatGPT(OpenAI,4.0)创建麻醉计划,包括心肺风险评估、术中麻醉技术和术后管理。一项定量评估将这些计划与八位资深麻醉顾问制定的计划进行了比较。评审委员会通过焦点小组讨论和专题分析进行了定性评估。心肺风险评估的一致性采用加权卡帕计算,其他结果采用描述性数据表示:结果:ChatGPT 麻醉计划与顾问计划的一致性参差不齐。ChatGPT、调查小组和评审委员会在心肺风险评估上经常出现意见分歧。ChatGPT 的答案重复且缺乏多样性,这体现在对全身麻醉的强烈偏好以及缺乏局部麻醉技术。此外,关于气道管理、术后镇痛和药物使用的选择也不一致。虽然有些差异被认为没有临床意义,但术后疼痛管理建议不达标以及不建议对肺吸入高风险患者进行气管插管被认为是不恰当的建议:结论:由 ChatGPT 生成的术前麻醉计划并不总是符合最低临床标准,也不太可能是临床推理的结果。因此,目前不建议将 ChatGPT 用于术前计划。未来在麻醉特定数据集上训练的大型语言模型可能会提高性能,但在用于临床实践之前应进行严格的评估。
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
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
期刊最新文献
Carbon emissions of single-use anaesthetic drug trays: more than meets the eye in life cycle assessment. Generation of preoperative anaesthetic plans by ChatGPT-4.0: a mixed-method study. Association between multimorbidity and quality of life after hip replacement surgery: analysis of routinely collected patient-reported outcomes. Improving decision-making for timing of surgery for high-risk comorbid patients. A narrative review of personal protective equipment gowns: lessons from COVID-19.
×
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