生成式预培训转换器 4:促进基于价值的医疗保健的创新方法

IF 4.4 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Intelligent medicine Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.imed.2023.09.001
Han Lyu , Zhixiang Wang , Jia Li , Jing Sun , Xinghao Wang , Pengling Ren , Linkun Cai , Zhenchang Wang , Max Wintermark
{"title":"生成式预培训转换器 4:促进基于价值的医疗保健的创新方法","authors":"Han Lyu ,&nbsp;Zhixiang Wang ,&nbsp;Jia Li ,&nbsp;Jing Sun ,&nbsp;Xinghao Wang ,&nbsp;Pengling Ren ,&nbsp;Linkun Cai ,&nbsp;Zhenchang Wang ,&nbsp;Max Wintermark","doi":"10.1016/j.imed.2023.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Appropriate medical imaging is important for value-based care. We aim to evaluate the performance of generative pretrained transformer 4 (GPT-4), an innovative natural language processing model, providing appropriate medical imaging automatically in different clinical scenarios.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Institutional Review Boards (IRB) approval was not required due to the use of nonidentifiable data. Instead, we used 112 questions from the American College of Radiology (ACR) Radiology-TEACHES Program as prompts, which is an open-sourced question and answer program to guide appropriate medical imaging. We included 69 free-text case vignettes and 43 simplified cases. For the performance evaluation of GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, we considered the recommendations of ACR guidelines as the gold standard, and then three radiologists analyzed the consistency of the responses from the GPT models with those of the ACR. We set a five-score criterion for the evaluation of the consistency. A paired t-test was applied to assess the statistical significance of the findings.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>For the performance of the GPT models in free-text case vignettes, the accuracy of GPT-4 was 92.9%, whereas the accuracy of GPT-3.5 was just 78.3%. GPT-4 can provide more appropriate suggestions to reduce the overutilization of medical imaging than GPT-3.5 (<em>t</em> = 3.429, <em>P</em> = 0.001). For the performance of the GPT models in simplified scenarios, the accuracy of GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 was 66.5% and 60.0%, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant (<em>t</em> = 1.858, <em>P</em> = 0.070). GPT-4 was characterized by longer reaction times (27.1 s in average) and extensive responses (137.1 words on average) than GPT-3.5.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>As an advanced tool for improving value-based healthcare in clinics, GPT-4 may guide appropriate medical imaging accurately and efficiently.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73400,"journal":{"name":"Intelligent medicine","volume":"4 1","pages":"Pages 10-15"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667102623000608/pdfft?md5=cecccaadb9c5cc3a9e585509d068faea&pid=1-s2.0-S2667102623000608-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Generative pretrained transformer 4: an innovative approach to facilitate value-based healthcare\",\"authors\":\"Han Lyu ,&nbsp;Zhixiang Wang ,&nbsp;Jia Li ,&nbsp;Jing Sun ,&nbsp;Xinghao Wang ,&nbsp;Pengling Ren ,&nbsp;Linkun Cai ,&nbsp;Zhenchang Wang ,&nbsp;Max Wintermark\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.imed.2023.09.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Appropriate medical imaging is important for value-based care. We aim to evaluate the performance of generative pretrained transformer 4 (GPT-4), an innovative natural language processing model, providing appropriate medical imaging automatically in different clinical scenarios.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Institutional Review Boards (IRB) approval was not required due to the use of nonidentifiable data. Instead, we used 112 questions from the American College of Radiology (ACR) Radiology-TEACHES Program as prompts, which is an open-sourced question and answer program to guide appropriate medical imaging. We included 69 free-text case vignettes and 43 simplified cases. For the performance evaluation of GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, we considered the recommendations of ACR guidelines as the gold standard, and then three radiologists analyzed the consistency of the responses from the GPT models with those of the ACR. We set a five-score criterion for the evaluation of the consistency. A paired t-test was applied to assess the statistical significance of the findings.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>For the performance of the GPT models in free-text case vignettes, the accuracy of GPT-4 was 92.9%, whereas the accuracy of GPT-3.5 was just 78.3%. GPT-4 can provide more appropriate suggestions to reduce the overutilization of medical imaging than GPT-3.5 (<em>t</em> = 3.429, <em>P</em> = 0.001). For the performance of the GPT models in simplified scenarios, the accuracy of GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 was 66.5% and 60.0%, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant (<em>t</em> = 1.858, <em>P</em> = 0.070). GPT-4 was characterized by longer reaction times (27.1 s in average) and extensive responses (137.1 words on average) than GPT-3.5.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>As an advanced tool for improving value-based healthcare in clinics, GPT-4 may guide appropriate medical imaging accurately and efficiently.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73400,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intelligent medicine\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 10-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667102623000608/pdfft?md5=cecccaadb9c5cc3a9e585509d068faea&pid=1-s2.0-S2667102623000608-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intelligent medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667102623000608\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intelligent medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667102623000608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标适当的医学影像对于基于价值的护理非常重要。我们旨在评估生成式预训练转换器 4 (GPT-4) 的性能,这是一种创新的自然语言处理模型,可在不同的临床场景中自动提供适当的医学成像。相反,我们使用了美国放射学会(ACR)放射学-TEACHES计划中的112个问题作为提示,这是一个开源的问答程序,用于指导适当的医学成像。我们纳入了 69 个自由文本病例小故事和 43 个简化病例。对于 GPT-4 和 GPT-3.5 的性能评估,我们将 ACR 指南的建议作为金标准,然后由三位放射科专家分析 GPT 模型的回答与 ACR 指南的回答是否一致。我们为一致性评估设定了五分标准。结果对于自由文本病例小故事中 GPT 模型的表现,GPT-4 的准确率为 92.9%,而 GPT-3.5 的准确率仅为 78.3%。与 GPT-3.5 相比,GPT-4 能为减少医学影像的过度使用提供更合适的建议(t = 3.429,P = 0.001)。就 GPT 模型在简化场景中的表现而言,GPT-4 和 GPT-3.5 的准确率分别为 66.5% 和 60.0%。差异无统计学意义(t = 1.858,P = 0.070)。与 GPT-3.5 相比,GPT-4 的特点是反应时间更长(平均 27.1 秒),反应范围更广(平均 137.1 个字)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Generative pretrained transformer 4: an innovative approach to facilitate value-based healthcare

Objective

Appropriate medical imaging is important for value-based care. We aim to evaluate the performance of generative pretrained transformer 4 (GPT-4), an innovative natural language processing model, providing appropriate medical imaging automatically in different clinical scenarios.

Methods

Institutional Review Boards (IRB) approval was not required due to the use of nonidentifiable data. Instead, we used 112 questions from the American College of Radiology (ACR) Radiology-TEACHES Program as prompts, which is an open-sourced question and answer program to guide appropriate medical imaging. We included 69 free-text case vignettes and 43 simplified cases. For the performance evaluation of GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, we considered the recommendations of ACR guidelines as the gold standard, and then three radiologists analyzed the consistency of the responses from the GPT models with those of the ACR. We set a five-score criterion for the evaluation of the consistency. A paired t-test was applied to assess the statistical significance of the findings.

Results

For the performance of the GPT models in free-text case vignettes, the accuracy of GPT-4 was 92.9%, whereas the accuracy of GPT-3.5 was just 78.3%. GPT-4 can provide more appropriate suggestions to reduce the overutilization of medical imaging than GPT-3.5 (t = 3.429, P = 0.001). For the performance of the GPT models in simplified scenarios, the accuracy of GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 was 66.5% and 60.0%, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant (t = 1.858, P = 0.070). GPT-4 was characterized by longer reaction times (27.1 s in average) and extensive responses (137.1 words on average) than GPT-3.5.

Conclusion

As an advanced tool for improving value-based healthcare in clinics, GPT-4 may guide appropriate medical imaging accurately and efficiently.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Intelligent medicine
Intelligent medicine Surgery, Radiology and Imaging, Artificial Intelligence, Biomedical Engineering
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Impact of data balancing a multiclass dataset before the creation of association rules to study bacterial vaginosis Neuropsychological detection and prediction using machine learning algorithms: a comprehensive review Improved neurological diagnoses and treatment strategies via automated human brain tissue segmentation from clinical magnetic resonance imaging Increasing the accuracy and reproducibility of positron emission tomography radiomics for predicting pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with cervical cancer using 3D local binary pattern-based texture features A clinical decision support system using rough set theory and machine learning for disease prediction
×
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