Evaluating the concordance of ChatGPT and physician recommendations for bariatric surgery.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Canadian journal of physiology and pharmacology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1139/cjpp-2024-0026
Sunny Kahlon, Mary Sleet, Joseph Sujka, Salvatore Docimo, Christopher DuCoin, Francesca Dimou, Rahul Mhaskar
{"title":"Evaluating the concordance of ChatGPT and physician recommendations for bariatric surgery.","authors":"Sunny Kahlon, Mary Sleet, Joseph Sujka, Salvatore Docimo, Christopher DuCoin, Francesca Dimou, Rahul Mhaskar","doi":"10.1139/cjpp-2024-0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare prompts the need to measure its proficiency relative to human experts. This study evaluates the proficiency of ChatGPT, an OpenAI language model, in offering guidance concerning bariatric surgery compared to bariatric surgeons. Five clinical scenarios representative of diverse bariatric surgery situations were given to American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS)-accredited bariatric surgeons and ChatGPT. Both groups proposed medical or surgical management for the patients depicted in each scenario. The outcomes from both the surgeons and ChatGPT were examined and matched with the clinical benchmarks set by the ASMBS. There was a high degree of agreement between ChatGPT and physicians on the three simpler clinical scenarios. There was a positive correlation between physicians' and ChatGPT answers for not recommending surgery. ChatGPT's advice aligned with ASMBS guidelines 60% of the time, in contrast to bariatric surgeons, who consistently aligned with the guidelines 100% of the time. ChatGPT showcases potential in offering guidance on bariatric surgery, but it does not have the comprehensive and personalized perspective that doctors exhibit consistently. Enhancing AI's training on intricate patient situations will bolster its role in the medical field.</p>","PeriodicalId":9520,"journal":{"name":"Canadian journal of physiology and pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"70-74"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian journal of physiology and pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1139/cjpp-2024-0026","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare prompts the need to measure its proficiency relative to human experts. This study evaluates the proficiency of ChatGPT, an OpenAI language model, in offering guidance concerning bariatric surgery compared to bariatric surgeons. Five clinical scenarios representative of diverse bariatric surgery situations were given to American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS)-accredited bariatric surgeons and ChatGPT. Both groups proposed medical or surgical management for the patients depicted in each scenario. The outcomes from both the surgeons and ChatGPT were examined and matched with the clinical benchmarks set by the ASMBS. There was a high degree of agreement between ChatGPT and physicians on the three simpler clinical scenarios. There was a positive correlation between physicians' and ChatGPT answers for not recommending surgery. ChatGPT's advice aligned with ASMBS guidelines 60% of the time, in contrast to bariatric surgeons, who consistently aligned with the guidelines 100% of the time. ChatGPT showcases potential in offering guidance on bariatric surgery, but it does not have the comprehensive and personalized perspective that doctors exhibit consistently. Enhancing AI's training on intricate patient situations will bolster its role in the medical field.

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
评估 ChatGPT 和医生对减肥手术建议的一致性。
将人工智能(AI)融入医疗保健领域,需要衡量其相对于人类专家的能力。本研究评估了开放人工智能语言模型 ChatGPT 与减肥外科医生相比在提供减肥手术指导方面的能力。五种临床情景代表了不同的减肥手术情况,分别提供给经 ASMBS 认证的减肥外科医生和 ChatGPT。两组人员都对每个场景中描述的患者提出了药物或手术治疗建议。对外科医生和 ChatGPT 的结果进行了检查,并与美国代谢与减肥外科协会(ASMBS)设定的临床基准进行了比对。在三个较简单的临床场景中,ChatGPT 和外科医生的结果高度一致。医生和 ChatGPT 对不建议手术的回答呈正相关。ChatGPT 的建议在 60% 的情况下与 ASMBS 指南保持一致,相比之下,减肥外科医生则始终 100%地与指南保持一致。ChatGPT 在提供减肥手术指导方面展现出了潜力,但它并不具备医生一贯表现出的全面和个性化视角。加强人工智能对复杂病人情况的培训将增强其在医疗领域的作用。
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
4.00
自引率
4.80%
发文量
90
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1929, the Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology is a monthly journal that reports current research in all aspects of physiology, nutrition, pharmacology, and toxicology, contributed by recognized experts and scientists. It publishes symposium reviews and award lectures and occasionally dedicates entire issues or portions of issues to subjects of special interest to its international readership. The journal periodically publishes a “Made In Canada” special section that features invited review articles from internationally recognized scientists who have received some of their training in Canada.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the concordance of ChatGPT and physician recommendations for bariatric surgery. Beneficial effects of the remifentanil/thiopental combination on cardiac function and redox status in diabetic rats. Analysis of literature-derived duplicate records in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. Endothelial characteristics of cardiac stem cell antigen-1 expressing cells and their relevance to right ventricular adaptation. Effects of Acute Aerobic Exercise on Skeletal Muscle and Liver Glucose Metabolism in Male Rodents with Type 1 Diabetes.
×
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