ChatGPT-4o in Risk-of-Bias Assessments in Neonatology: A Validity Analysis.

IF 3 Neonatology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1159/000544857
Ilari Kuitunen, Lauri Nyrhi, Daniele De Luca
{"title":"ChatGPT-4o in Risk-of-Bias Assessments in Neonatology: A Validity Analysis.","authors":"Ilari Kuitunen, Lauri Nyrhi, Daniele De Luca","doi":"10.1159/000544857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Only a few studies have addressed the potential of large language models (LLMs) in risk-of-bias assessments and the results have been varying. The aim of this study was to analyze how well ChatGPT performs in risk-of-bias assessments of neonatal studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched all Cochrane neonatal intervention reviews published in 2024 and extracted all risk-of-bias assessments. Then the full reports were retrieved and uploaded alongside the guidance to perform a Cochrane original risk-of-bias analysis in ChatGPT-4o. The concordance between the original assessment and that provided by ChatGPT-4o was evaluated by inter-class correlation coefficients and Cohen's kappa statistics (with 95% confidence intervals) for each risk-of-bias domain and for the overall assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 9 reviews, a total of 61 randomized studies were analyzed. A total of 427 judgments were compared. The overall κ was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.35-0.51) and the overall intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.59-0.70). The Cohen's κ was assessed for each domain and the best agreement was observed in the allocation concealment (κ = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55-0.90), whereas the poorest agreement was found in incomplete outcome data (κ = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.07-0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ChatGPT-4o failed to achieve sufficient agreement in the risk-of-bias assessments. Future studies should examine whether the performance of other LLM would be better or whether the agreement in ChatGPT-4o could be further enhanced by better prompting. Currently, the use of ChatGPT-4o in risk-of-bias assessments should not be promoted.</p>","PeriodicalId":94152,"journal":{"name":"Neonatology","volume":" ","pages":"360-365"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12129414/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neonatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000544857","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Only a few studies have addressed the potential of large language models (LLMs) in risk-of-bias assessments and the results have been varying. The aim of this study was to analyze how well ChatGPT performs in risk-of-bias assessments of neonatal studies.

Methods: We searched all Cochrane neonatal intervention reviews published in 2024 and extracted all risk-of-bias assessments. Then the full reports were retrieved and uploaded alongside the guidance to perform a Cochrane original risk-of-bias analysis in ChatGPT-4o. The concordance between the original assessment and that provided by ChatGPT-4o was evaluated by inter-class correlation coefficients and Cohen's kappa statistics (with 95% confidence intervals) for each risk-of-bias domain and for the overall assessment.

Results: From 9 reviews, a total of 61 randomized studies were analyzed. A total of 427 judgments were compared. The overall κ was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.35-0.51) and the overall intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.59-0.70). The Cohen's κ was assessed for each domain and the best agreement was observed in the allocation concealment (κ = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55-0.90), whereas the poorest agreement was found in incomplete outcome data (κ = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.07-0.02).

Conclusion: ChatGPT-4o failed to achieve sufficient agreement in the risk-of-bias assessments. Future studies should examine whether the performance of other LLM would be better or whether the agreement in ChatGPT-4o could be further enhanced by better prompting. Currently, the use of ChatGPT-4o in risk-of-bias assessments should not be promoted.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
新生儿科偏倚风险评估中的 ChatGPT-4o - 有效性分析。
背景:只有少数研究解决了大型语言模型(LLM)在偏见风险评估中的潜力,结果也各不相同。本研究的目的是分析ChatGPT在新生儿研究的偏倚风险评估中的表现。方法:检索2024年发表的所有Cochrane新生儿干预评价,提取所有偏倚风险评价。然后检索完整的报告,并将其与chatgpt - 40的Cochrane原始偏倚风险分析指南一起上传。原始评估与chatgpt - 40提供的评估之间的一致性通过类间相关系数和Cohen's Kappa统计量(每个偏置域风险和总体评估的95%置信区间)进行评估。结果:从9篇综述中,共分析了61项随机研究。总共比较了427个判断。总体kappa为0.43 (95%CI 0.35 ~ 0.51),总体类内相关系数为0.65 (95%CI 0.59 ~ 0.70)。评估了每个领域的Cohen’s kappa,在分配隐藏中观察到最好的一致性(kappa=0.73, 95%CI: 0.55-0.90),而在不完整的结果数据中发现最差的一致性(kappa=-0.03, 95%CI: -0.07-0.02)。结论:chatgpt - 40在偏倚风险评估方面未能达成充分一致。未来的研究应该考察其他LLM的表现是否会更好,或者通过更好的提示是否可以进一步提高chatgpt - 40中的一致性。目前不应推广在偏倚风险评估中使用chatgpt - 40。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) in extreme preterm infants - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Research at the Paris Foundling Hospitals. Part 1: Until and During the Revolution. Pulmonary Hypertension Association with mortality in Newborns with Giant Omphalocele: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sudden unexpected postnatal collapse (SUPC) in the Netherlands: a national registry study. Association between Regional Labour Analgesia and Neonatal Heart Rate Immediately after Birth.
×
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:604180095
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