Can artificial intelligence diagnose seizures based on patients' descriptions? A study of GPT-4

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Epilepsia Pub Date : 2025-02-27 DOI:10.1111/epi.18322
Joseph Ford, Nathan Pevy, Richard Grunewald, Stephen Howell, Markus Reuber
{"title":"Can artificial intelligence diagnose seizures based on patients' descriptions? A study of GPT-4","authors":"Joseph Ford,&nbsp;Nathan Pevy,&nbsp;Richard Grunewald,&nbsp;Stephen Howell,&nbsp;Markus Reuber","doi":"10.1111/epi.18322","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Generalist large language models (LLMs) have shown diagnostic potential in various medical contexts but have not been explored extensively in relation to epilepsy. This paper aims to test the performance of an LLM (OpenAI's GPT-4) on the differential diagnosis of epileptic and functional/dissociative seizures (FDS) based on patients' descriptions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>GPT-4 was asked to diagnose 41 cases of epilepsy (<i>n</i> = 16) or FDS (<i>n</i> = 25) based on transcripts of patients describing their symptoms (median word count = 399). It was first asked to perform this task without additional training examples (zero-shot) before being asked to perform it having been given one, two, and three examples of each condition (one-, two, and three-shot). As a benchmark, three experienced neurologists performed this task without access to any additional clinical or demographic information (e.g., age, gender, socioeconomic status).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In the zero-shot condition, GPT-4's average balanced accuracy was 57% (κ = .15). Balanced accuracy improved in the one-shot condition (64%, κ = .27), but did not improve any further in the two-shot (62%, κ = .24) and three-shot (62%, κ = .23) conditions. Performance in all four conditions was worse than the mean balanced accuracy of the experienced neurologists (71%, κ = .42). However, in the subset of 18 cases that all three neurologists had “diagnosed” correctly (median word count = 684), GPT-4's balanced accuracy was 81% (κ = .66).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Significance</h3>\n \n <p>Although its “raw” performance was poor, GPT-4 showed noticeable improvement having been given just one example of a patient describing epilepsy and FDS. Giving two and three examples did not further improve performance, but the finding that GPT-4 did much better in those cases correctly diagnosed by all three neurologists suggests that providing more extensive clinical data and more elaborate approaches (e.g., more refined prompt engineering, fine-tuning, or retrieval augmented generation) could unlock the full diagnostic potential of LLMs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11768,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia","volume":"66 6","pages":"1959-1974"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/epi.18322","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/epi.18322","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Generalist large language models (LLMs) have shown diagnostic potential in various medical contexts but have not been explored extensively in relation to epilepsy. This paper aims to test the performance of an LLM (OpenAI's GPT-4) on the differential diagnosis of epileptic and functional/dissociative seizures (FDS) based on patients' descriptions.

Methods

GPT-4 was asked to diagnose 41 cases of epilepsy (n = 16) or FDS (n = 25) based on transcripts of patients describing their symptoms (median word count = 399). It was first asked to perform this task without additional training examples (zero-shot) before being asked to perform it having been given one, two, and three examples of each condition (one-, two, and three-shot). As a benchmark, three experienced neurologists performed this task without access to any additional clinical or demographic information (e.g., age, gender, socioeconomic status).

Results

In the zero-shot condition, GPT-4's average balanced accuracy was 57% (κ = .15). Balanced accuracy improved in the one-shot condition (64%, κ = .27), but did not improve any further in the two-shot (62%, κ = .24) and three-shot (62%, κ = .23) conditions. Performance in all four conditions was worse than the mean balanced accuracy of the experienced neurologists (71%, κ = .42). However, in the subset of 18 cases that all three neurologists had “diagnosed” correctly (median word count = 684), GPT-4's balanced accuracy was 81% (κ = .66).

Significance

Although its “raw” performance was poor, GPT-4 showed noticeable improvement having been given just one example of a patient describing epilepsy and FDS. Giving two and three examples did not further improve performance, but the finding that GPT-4 did much better in those cases correctly diagnosed by all three neurologists suggests that providing more extensive clinical data and more elaborate approaches (e.g., more refined prompt engineering, fine-tuning, or retrieval augmented generation) could unlock the full diagnostic potential of LLMs.

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
人工智能能否根据病人的描述诊断癫痫?GPT-4的研究。
目的:通才大语言模型(LLMs)在各种医学环境中显示出诊断潜力,但尚未广泛探讨与癫痫有关的问题。本文旨在测试基于患者描述的LLM (OpenAI的GPT-4)在癫痫和功能性/解离性癫痫(FDS)鉴别诊断中的性能。方法:采用GPT-4根据患者描述其症状的转录本(中位数字数为399)诊断41例癫痫(n = 16)或FDS (n = 25)。首先,它被要求在没有额外训练示例(零射击)的情况下执行该任务,然后再被要求在每种情况下分别给出一个、两个和三个示例(一枪、二枪和三枪)。作为基准,三名经验丰富的神经科医生在没有任何额外临床或人口统计信息(如年龄、性别、社会经济地位)的情况下执行这项任务。结果:在零射条件下,GPT-4的平均平衡准确率为57% (κ = 0.15)。在一次射击条件下,平衡精度提高了(64%,κ = 0.27),但在两次射击条件下(62%,κ = 0.24)和三次射击条件下(62%,κ = 0.23)没有进一步提高。在所有四种情况下的表现都不如经验丰富的神经科医生的平均平衡准确性(71%,κ = .42)。然而,在所有三位神经科医生都“诊断”正确的18例病例中(中位数字数= 684),GPT-4的平衡准确性为81% (κ = 0.66)。意义:尽管GPT-4的“原始”表现很差,但仅给一个描述癫痫和FDS的患者的例子,GPT-4就显示出明显的改善。给出两个和三个例子并不能进一步提高表现,但是发现GPT-4在所有三位神经科医生正确诊断的病例中表现更好,这表明提供更广泛的临床数据和更详细的方法(例如,更精细的提示工程,微调或检索增强生成)可以释放llm的全部诊断潜力。
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
Epilepsia
Epilepsia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Epilepsia is the leading, authoritative source for innovative clinical and basic science research for all aspects of epilepsy and seizures. In addition, Epilepsia publishes critical reviews, opinion pieces, and guidelines that foster understanding and aim to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with seizures and epilepsy.
期刊最新文献
An n-of-1 gene-directed drug repurposing trial for an ultrarare genetic condition. Rehabilitation of cognition and psychosocial well-being in epilepsy: Results of a randomized waiting list-controlled trial. Dual role of spreading depolarization in an epileptic focus. Spatiotemporal dynamics of seizure networks: Progressive posterior hippocampal recruitment in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. CaMKIIβ insufficiency disrupts cortical networks, producing aberrant low-gamma oscillations and seizure susceptibility.
×
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