Exploring the role of ChatGPT in patient care (diagnosis and treatment) and medical research: A systematic review

IF 2.4 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Promotion Perspectives Pub Date : 2023-06-14 DOI:10.1101/2023.06.13.23291311
R. Garg, V. L. Urs, Akshya Anand Agrawal, Sarvesh Kumar Chaudhary, V. Paliwal, Sujita Kumar Kar
{"title":"Exploring the role of ChatGPT in patient care (diagnosis and treatment) and medical research: A systematic review","authors":"R. Garg, V. L. Urs, Akshya Anand Agrawal, Sarvesh Kumar Chaudhary, V. Paliwal, Sujita Kumar Kar","doi":"10.1101/2023.06.13.23291311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background ChatGPT(Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) is an artificial intelligence (AI) based on a natural language processing tool developed by OpenAI (California, USA). This systematic review examines the potential of Chat GPT in diagnosing and treating patients and its contributions to medical research. Methods In order to locate articles on ChatGPT's use in clinical practise and medical research, this systematic review used PRISMA standards and conducted database searches across several sources. Selected records were analysed using ChatGPT, which also produced a summary for each article. The resultant word document was transformed to a PDF and handled using ChatPDF. The review looked at topics pertaining to scholarly publishing, clinical practise, and medical research. Results We reviewed 118 publications. There are difficulties and moral conundrums associated with using ChatGPT in therapeutic settings and medical research. Patient inquiries, note writing, decision-making, trial enrolment, data management, decision support, research support, and patient education are all things that ChatGPT can help with. However, the solutions it provides are frequently inadequate and inconsistent, presenting issues with its originality, privacy, accuracy, bias, and legality. When utilising ChatGPT for academic writings, there are issues with prejudice and plagiarism, and because it lacks human-like characteristics, its authority as an author is called into question. Conclusions ChatGPT has limitations when used in research and healthcare. Even while it aids in patient treatment, concerns regarding accuracy, authorship, and bias arise. Currently, ChatGPT can serve as a \"clinical assistant\" and be a huge assistance with research and scholarly writing.","PeriodicalId":46588,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion Perspectives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.13.23291311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background ChatGPT(Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) is an artificial intelligence (AI) based on a natural language processing tool developed by OpenAI (California, USA). This systematic review examines the potential of Chat GPT in diagnosing and treating patients and its contributions to medical research. Methods In order to locate articles on ChatGPT's use in clinical practise and medical research, this systematic review used PRISMA standards and conducted database searches across several sources. Selected records were analysed using ChatGPT, which also produced a summary for each article. The resultant word document was transformed to a PDF and handled using ChatPDF. The review looked at topics pertaining to scholarly publishing, clinical practise, and medical research. Results We reviewed 118 publications. There are difficulties and moral conundrums associated with using ChatGPT in therapeutic settings and medical research. Patient inquiries, note writing, decision-making, trial enrolment, data management, decision support, research support, and patient education are all things that ChatGPT can help with. However, the solutions it provides are frequently inadequate and inconsistent, presenting issues with its originality, privacy, accuracy, bias, and legality. When utilising ChatGPT for academic writings, there are issues with prejudice and plagiarism, and because it lacks human-like characteristics, its authority as an author is called into question. Conclusions ChatGPT has limitations when used in research and healthcare. Even while it aids in patient treatment, concerns regarding accuracy, authorship, and bias arise. Currently, ChatGPT can serve as a "clinical assistant" and be a huge assistance with research and scholarly writing.
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
探索ChatGPT在患者护理(诊断和治疗)和医学研究中的作用:系统综述
背景ChatGPT(Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer)是由OpenAI(美国加利福尼亚州)开发的一种基于自然语言处理工具的人工智能。这篇系统综述考察了Chat GPT在诊断和治疗患者方面的潜力及其对医学研究的贡献。方法为了查找关于ChatGPT在临床实践和医学研究中使用的文章,本系统综述使用了PRISMA标准,并在多个来源中进行了数据库搜索。使用ChatGPT对选定的记录进行分析,并为每篇文章生成摘要。生成的word文档被转换为PDF,并使用ChatPDF进行处理。这篇综述着眼于与学术出版、临床实践和医学研究有关的主题。结果我们查阅了118篇文献。在治疗环境和医学研究中使用ChatGPT存在困难和道德难题。ChatGPT可以帮助患者查询、笔记撰写、决策、试验登记、数据管理、决策支持、研究支持和患者教育。然而,它提供的解决方案往往是不充分和不一致的,这给它的独创性、隐私性、准确性、偏见和合法性带来了问题。在使用ChatGPT进行学术写作时,存在偏见和抄袭问题,而且由于它缺乏类似人类的特征,它作为作者的权威性受到质疑。结论ChatGPT在研究和医疗保健中的应用存在局限性。即使它有助于患者治疗,也会引起对准确性、作者身份和偏见的担忧。目前,ChatGPT可以作为“临床助理”,为研究和学术写作提供巨大帮助。
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
Health Promotion Perspectives
Health Promotion Perspectives PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
2.30%
发文量
27
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
A systematic review of the impact of therapeutic education programs on the quality of life of people with Multiple Sclerosis. Childhood maltreatment and vulnerability to substance use disorders: The mediating role of psychological security. Corrigendum to: Examining associations between smartphone use, smartphone addiction, and mental health outcomes: a cross-sectional study of college students Kil N, Kim J, McDaniel JT, Kim J, Kensinger K. Health Promot Perspect. 2021;11(1):36-44. doi: 10.34172/hpp.2021.06. Corrigendum to: Prevalence and incidence of type 1 diabetes in the world: a systematic review and meta-analysis Mobasseri M, Shirmohammadi M, Amiri T, Vahed N, Hosseini Fard H, Ghojazadeh M. Health Promot Perspect. 2020 Mar 30;10(2):98-115. doi: 10.34172/hpp.2020.18. Development of a new equation and validation of earlier resting energy expenditure predicting equations in adults living in Tehran.
×
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