Artificial Intelligence in Diagnosing and Managing Vascular Surgery Patients: An Experimental Study Using the GPT-4 Model.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Annals of vascular surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-23 DOI:10.1016/j.avsg.2024.11.014
Vangelis G Alexiou, Bauer E Sumpio, Areti Vassiliou, Stavros K Kakkos, George Geroulakos
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence in Diagnosing and Managing Vascular Surgery Patients: An Experimental Study Using the GPT-4 Model.","authors":"Vangelis G Alexiou, Bauer E Sumpio, Areti Vassiliou, Stavros K Kakkos, George Geroulakos","doi":"10.1016/j.avsg.2024.11.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) has led to groundbreaking advancements across many scientific fields. Machine learning algorithms have enabled AI models to learn, adapt, and solve complex problems in previously unimaginable ways. Natural language processing (NLP) allows these models to comprehend and respond to inquiries in a natural and humanly understandable way. We sought to investigate the application and performance of an AI chatbot in the diagnosis and management of vascular surgery patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An experimental study to evaluate the performance of GPT-4 AI model across 57 clinical scenarios derived from a textbook in vascular surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Specific prompts were devised to address the AI model and task it to identify symptoms, diagnose conditions, and select appropriate therapeutic approaches. Answers were scored, descriptive statistics were produced and means were compared across topics. The reasoning and evidence used in the cases in which AI performed poorly were critically reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AI model correctly answered over 65% of the 385 questions. Performance variation between and within 13 vascular surgery topics did not show any statistically significant differences. Analysis of the questions where the model failed by more than 50% suggests a gap in the ability to interpret and process multifaceted medical information. 27% of these errors were attributed to potential lack of understanding of complex clinical scenarios. The AI model also quoted incorrect or outdated information in 14% of cases and showed an inability to comprehend context, nuances, and medical classification systems in 11% of the cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPT-4 demonstrated potential to provide clinically relevant answers for most of the tested scenarios. However, its reasoning must still be carefully analyzed for exactitude and clinical validity. While language models show promise as valuable tools for clinicians, it is essential to recognize their role as supportive mechanisms rather than standalone solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":8061,"journal":{"name":"Annals of vascular surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of vascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2024.11.014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) has led to groundbreaking advancements across many scientific fields. Machine learning algorithms have enabled AI models to learn, adapt, and solve complex problems in previously unimaginable ways. Natural language processing (NLP) allows these models to comprehend and respond to inquiries in a natural and humanly understandable way. We sought to investigate the application and performance of an AI chatbot in the diagnosis and management of vascular surgery patients.

Design: An experimental study to evaluate the performance of GPT-4 AI model across 57 clinical scenarios derived from a textbook in vascular surgery.

Methods: Specific prompts were devised to address the AI model and task it to identify symptoms, diagnose conditions, and select appropriate therapeutic approaches. Answers were scored, descriptive statistics were produced and means were compared across topics. The reasoning and evidence used in the cases in which AI performed poorly were critically reviewed.

Results: The AI model correctly answered over 65% of the 385 questions. Performance variation between and within 13 vascular surgery topics did not show any statistically significant differences. Analysis of the questions where the model failed by more than 50% suggests a gap in the ability to interpret and process multifaceted medical information. 27% of these errors were attributed to potential lack of understanding of complex clinical scenarios. The AI model also quoted incorrect or outdated information in 14% of cases and showed an inability to comprehend context, nuances, and medical classification systems in 11% of the cases.

Conclusion: GPT-4 demonstrated potential to provide clinically relevant answers for most of the tested scenarios. However, its reasoning must still be carefully analyzed for exactitude and clinical validity. While language models show promise as valuable tools for clinicians, it is essential to recognize their role as supportive mechanisms rather than standalone solutions.

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
人工智能在血管外科患者诊断和管理中的应用:使用 GPT-4 模型的实验研究。
目的:人工智能(AI)的引入为许多科学领域带来了突破性的进步。机器学习算法使人工智能模型能够以以前无法想象的方式学习、适应和解决复杂问题。自然语言处理(NLP)使这些模型能够以自然和人类可理解的方式理解和回应询问。我们试图研究人工智能聊天机器人在血管外科患者诊断和管理中的应用和性能:设计:一项实验研究,评估 GPT-4 人工智能模型在 57 个临床场景中的表现,这些场景来自一本血管外科教科书:方法:针对人工智能模型设计了具体的提示,要求其识别症状、诊断病情并选择适当的治疗方法。对答案进行评分,得出描述性统计结果,并对不同题目的平均值进行比较。对人工智能表现不佳的案例所使用的推理和证据进行了严格审查:结果:人工智能模型正确回答了 385 个问题中的 65% 以上。13 个血管外科题目之间和题目内部的成绩差异在统计学上没有任何显著性差异。对模型失败率超过 50%的问题进行分析后发现,在解释和处理多方面医学信息的能力方面存在差距。其中 27% 的错误归因于可能缺乏对复杂临床场景的理解。人工智能模型还在14%的案例中引用了错误或过时的信息,并在11%的案例中显示出无法理解上下文、细微差别和医疗分类系统:结论:GPT-4 展示了为大多数测试场景提供临床相关答案的潜力。结论:GPT-4 显示出了为大多数测试场景提供临床相关答案的潜力,但仍需对其推理的准确性和临床有效性进行仔细分析。虽然语言模型有望成为临床医生的宝贵工具,但必须认识到其作为辅助机制而非独立解决方案的作用。
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
3.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
603
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Vascular Surgery, published eight times a year, invites original manuscripts reporting clinical and experimental work in vascular surgery for peer review. Articles may be submitted for the following sections of the journal: Clinical Research (reports of clinical series, new drug or medical device trials) Basic Science Research (new investigations, experimental work) Case Reports (reports on a limited series of patients) General Reviews (scholarly review of the existing literature on a relevant topic) Developments in Endovascular and Endoscopic Surgery Selected Techniques (technical maneuvers) Historical Notes (interesting vignettes from the early days of vascular surgery) Editorials/Correspondence
期刊最新文献
Retraction Notice to "Predictive Factors of Surgical Complications in the First Year Following Kidney Transplantation" [Annals of Vascular Surgery 83 (2022) 142-151]. RESISTANCE INDEX AS A PROGNOSTIC FACTOR FOR PATENCY IN DISTAL LOWER LIMB ARTERIAL REVASCULARIZATION. Safety and effectiveness of ultrasound-guided percutaneous versus open brachial artery access: results of the multicenter prospective ARCHIBAL study Percutaneous/open brachial artery access. A diagnostic comparison study between maximal systolic acceleration and acceleration time to detect peripheral arterial disease. Artificial Intelligence in Diagnosing and Managing Vascular Surgery Patients: An Experimental Study Using the GPT-4 Model.
×
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