Justina Wong, Conley Kriegler, Ananya Shrivastava, Adele Duimering, Connie Le
{"title":"Utility of Chatbot Literature Search in Radiation Oncology.","authors":"Justina Wong, Conley Kriegler, Ananya Shrivastava, Adele Duimering, Connie Le","doi":"10.1007/s13187-024-02547-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial intelligence and natural language processing tools have shown promise in oncology by assisting with medical literature retrieval and providing patient support. The potential for these technologies to generate inaccurate yet seemingly correct information poses significant challenges. This study evaluates the effectiveness, benefits, and limitations of ChatGPT for clinical use in conducting literature reviews of radiation oncology treatments. This cross-sectional study used ChatGPT version 3.5 to generate literature searches on radiotherapy options for seven tumor sites, with prompts issued five times per site to generate up to 50 publications per tumor type. The publications were verified using the Scopus database and categorized as correct, irrelevant, or non-existent. Statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA compared the impact factors and citation counts across different tumor sites. Among the 350 publications generated, there were 44 correct, 298 non-existent, and 8 irrelevant papers. The average publication year of all generated papers was 2011, compared to 2009 for the correct papers. The average impact factor of all generated papers was 38.8, compared to 113.8 for the correct papers. There were significant differences in the publication year, impact factor, and citation counts between tumor sites for both correct and non-existent papers. Our study highlights both the potential utility and significant limitations of using AI, specifically ChatGPT 3.5, in radiation oncology literature reviews. The findings emphasize the need for verification of AI outputs, development of standardized quality assurance protocols, and continued research into AI biases to ensure reliable integration into clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-024-02547-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Artificial intelligence and natural language processing tools have shown promise in oncology by assisting with medical literature retrieval and providing patient support. The potential for these technologies to generate inaccurate yet seemingly correct information poses significant challenges. This study evaluates the effectiveness, benefits, and limitations of ChatGPT for clinical use in conducting literature reviews of radiation oncology treatments. This cross-sectional study used ChatGPT version 3.5 to generate literature searches on radiotherapy options for seven tumor sites, with prompts issued five times per site to generate up to 50 publications per tumor type. The publications were verified using the Scopus database and categorized as correct, irrelevant, or non-existent. Statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA compared the impact factors and citation counts across different tumor sites. Among the 350 publications generated, there were 44 correct, 298 non-existent, and 8 irrelevant papers. The average publication year of all generated papers was 2011, compared to 2009 for the correct papers. The average impact factor of all generated papers was 38.8, compared to 113.8 for the correct papers. There were significant differences in the publication year, impact factor, and citation counts between tumor sites for both correct and non-existent papers. Our study highlights both the potential utility and significant limitations of using AI, specifically ChatGPT 3.5, in radiation oncology literature reviews. The findings emphasize the need for verification of AI outputs, development of standardized quality assurance protocols, and continued research into AI biases to ensure reliable integration into clinical practice.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues.
Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care.
We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts.
Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited.
Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants.
Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.