危险 危险 加斯东-拉巴特零注射人工智能与神经麻醉抗凝指南建议相关吗?

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1136/rapm-2023-104868
Nathan C Hurley, Rajnish K Gupta, Kristopher M Schroeder, Aaron S Hess
{"title":"危险 危险 加斯东-拉巴特零注射人工智能与神经麻醉抗凝指南建议相关吗?","authors":"Nathan C Hurley, Rajnish K Gupta, Kristopher M Schroeder, Aaron S Hess","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2023-104868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs) have emerged as potentially disruptive technologies in healthcare. In this study GPT-3.5, an accessible LLM, was assessed for its accuracy and reliability in performing guideline-based evaluation of neuraxial bleeding risk in hypothetical patients on anticoagulation medication. The study also explored the impact of structured prompt guidance on the LLM's performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A dataset of 10 hypothetical patient stems and 26 anticoagulation profiles (260 unique combinations) was developed based on American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine guidelines. Five prompts were created for the LLM, ranging from minimal guidance to explicit instructions. The model's responses were compared with a \"truth table\" based on the guidelines. Performance metrics, including accuracy and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline performance of GPT-3.5 was slightly above chance. With detailed prompts and explicit guidelines, performance improved significantly (AUC 0.70, 95% CI (0.64 to 0.77)). Performance varied among medication classes.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>LLMs show potential for assisting in clinical decision making but rely on accurate and relevant prompts. Integration of LLMs should consider safety and privacy concerns. Further research is needed to optimize LLM performance and address complex scenarios. The tested LLM demonstrates potential in assessing neuraxial bleeding risk but relies on precise prompts. LLM integration should be approached cautiously, considering limitations. Future research should focus on optimization and understanding LLM capabilities and limitations in healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"661-667"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Danger, Danger, Gaston Labat! Does zero-shot artificial intelligence correlate with anticoagulation guidelines recommendations for neuraxial anesthesia?\",\"authors\":\"Nathan C Hurley, Rajnish K Gupta, Kristopher M Schroeder, Aaron S Hess\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/rapm-2023-104868\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs) have emerged as potentially disruptive technologies in healthcare. In this study GPT-3.5, an accessible LLM, was assessed for its accuracy and reliability in performing guideline-based evaluation of neuraxial bleeding risk in hypothetical patients on anticoagulation medication. The study also explored the impact of structured prompt guidance on the LLM's performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A dataset of 10 hypothetical patient stems and 26 anticoagulation profiles (260 unique combinations) was developed based on American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine guidelines. Five prompts were created for the LLM, ranging from minimal guidance to explicit instructions. The model's responses were compared with a \\\"truth table\\\" based on the guidelines. Performance metrics, including accuracy and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline performance of GPT-3.5 was slightly above chance. With detailed prompts and explicit guidelines, performance improved significantly (AUC 0.70, 95% CI (0.64 to 0.77)). Performance varied among medication classes.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>LLMs show potential for assisting in clinical decision making but rely on accurate and relevant prompts. Integration of LLMs should consider safety and privacy concerns. Further research is needed to optimize LLM performance and address complex scenarios. The tested LLM demonstrates potential in assessing neuraxial bleeding risk but relies on precise prompts. LLM integration should be approached cautiously, considering limitations. Future research should focus on optimization and understanding LLM capabilities and limitations in healthcare.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"661-667\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2023-104868\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2023-104868","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:人工智能和大型语言模型(LLM)已成为医疗保健领域潜在的颠覆性技术。本研究评估了 GPT-3.5(一种易于使用的 LLM)在对服用抗凝药物的假设患者进行基于指南的神经性出血风险评估时的准确性和可靠性。研究还探讨了结构化提示指导对 LLM 性能的影响:方法:根据美国区域麻醉和疼痛医学学会指南,开发了一个包含 10 个假设患者主干和 26 个抗凝配置文件(260 个独特组合)的数据集。为 LLM 创建了五个提示,从最基本的指导到明确的指示。模型的响应与基于指南的 "真值表 "进行了比较。使用的性能指标包括准确率和接收者操作曲线下面积(AUC):结果:GPT-3.5 的基准性能略高于偶然性。有了详细的提示和明确的指南后,性能明显提高(AUC 0.70,95% CI (0.64 至 0.77))。不同药物类别的表现各不相同:讨论:LLMs 显示出辅助临床决策的潜力,但这有赖于准确和相关的提示。整合 LLMs 应考虑安全性和隐私问题。需要进一步开展研究,以优化 LLM 的性能并应对复杂的情况。经过测试的 LLM 具备评估神经轴出血风险的潜力,但需要准确的提示。考虑到局限性,应谨慎对待 LLM 集成。未来的研究应侧重于优化和了解 LLM 在医疗保健中的功能和局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Danger, Danger, Gaston Labat! Does zero-shot artificial intelligence correlate with anticoagulation guidelines recommendations for neuraxial anesthesia?

Introduction: Artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs) have emerged as potentially disruptive technologies in healthcare. In this study GPT-3.5, an accessible LLM, was assessed for its accuracy and reliability in performing guideline-based evaluation of neuraxial bleeding risk in hypothetical patients on anticoagulation medication. The study also explored the impact of structured prompt guidance on the LLM's performance.

Methods: A dataset of 10 hypothetical patient stems and 26 anticoagulation profiles (260 unique combinations) was developed based on American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine guidelines. Five prompts were created for the LLM, ranging from minimal guidance to explicit instructions. The model's responses were compared with a "truth table" based on the guidelines. Performance metrics, including accuracy and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), were used.

Results: Baseline performance of GPT-3.5 was slightly above chance. With detailed prompts and explicit guidelines, performance improved significantly (AUC 0.70, 95% CI (0.64 to 0.77)). Performance varied among medication classes.

Discussion: LLMs show potential for assisting in clinical decision making but rely on accurate and relevant prompts. Integration of LLMs should consider safety and privacy concerns. Further research is needed to optimize LLM performance and address complex scenarios. The tested LLM demonstrates potential in assessing neuraxial bleeding risk but relies on precise prompts. LLM integration should be approached cautiously, considering limitations. Future research should focus on optimization and understanding LLM capabilities and limitations in healthcare.

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
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications. Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and risk factors for chronic postamputation pain requiring analgesia or nerve interventions: a population-based study in East Asia. Clinical study of a micro-implantable pulse generator for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain: 12-month results from the COMFORT-randomized controlled trial. Axonal sensitivity and block dynamics. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections versus platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for cervical facetogenic pain: a randomized clinical trial. Structural changes in the nociceptive system induced by long-term conventional spinal cord stimulation in experimental painful diabetic polyneuropathy.
×
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