{"title":"神经学诊断：人工智能与诊断生成器的比较。","authors":"Pasquale F Finelli","doi":"10.1097/NRL.0000000000000560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Artificial intelligence has recently become available for widespread use in medicine, including the interpretation of digitized information, big data for tracking disease trends and patterns, and clinical diagnosis. Comparative studies and expert opinion support the validity of imaging and data analysis, yet similar validation is lacking in clinical diagnosis. Artificial intelligence programs are here compared with a diagnostic generator program in clinical neurology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using 4 nonrandomly selected case records from New England Journal of Medicine clinicopathologic conferences from 2017 to 2022, 2 artificial intelligence programs (ChatGPT-4 and GLASS AI) were compared with a neurological diagnostic generator program (NeurologicDx.com) for diagnostic capability and accuracy and source authentication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with NeurologicDx.com, the 2 AI programs showed results varying with order of key term entry and with repeat querying. The diagnostic generator yielded more differential diagnostic entities, with correct diagnoses in 4 of 4 test cases versus 0 of 4 for ChatGPT-4 and 1 of 4 for GLASS AI, respectively, and with authentication of diagnostic entities compared with the AI programs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The diagnostic generator NeurologicDx yielded a more robust and reproducible differential diagnostic list with higher diagnostic accuracy and associated authentication compared with artificial intelligence programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":49758,"journal":{"name":"Neurologist","volume":" ","pages":"143-145"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neurological Diagnosis: Artificial Intelligence Compared With Diagnostic Generator.\",\"authors\":\"Pasquale F Finelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/NRL.0000000000000560\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Artificial intelligence has recently become available for widespread use in medicine, including the interpretation of digitized information, big data for tracking disease trends and patterns, and clinical diagnosis. Comparative studies and expert opinion support the validity of imaging and data analysis, yet similar validation is lacking in clinical diagnosis. Artificial intelligence programs are here compared with a diagnostic generator program in clinical neurology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using 4 nonrandomly selected case records from New England Journal of Medicine clinicopathologic conferences from 2017 to 2022, 2 artificial intelligence programs (ChatGPT-4 and GLASS AI) were compared with a neurological diagnostic generator program (NeurologicDx.com) for diagnostic capability and accuracy and source authentication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with NeurologicDx.com, the 2 AI programs showed results varying with order of key term entry and with repeat querying. The diagnostic generator yielded more differential diagnostic entities, with correct diagnoses in 4 of 4 test cases versus 0 of 4 for ChatGPT-4 and 1 of 4 for GLASS AI, respectively, and with authentication of diagnostic entities compared with the AI programs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The diagnostic generator NeurologicDx yielded a more robust and reproducible differential diagnostic list with higher diagnostic accuracy and associated authentication compared with artificial intelligence programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurologist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"143-145\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/NRL.0000000000000560\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NRL.0000000000000560","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Neurological Diagnosis: Artificial Intelligence Compared With Diagnostic Generator.
Objective: Artificial intelligence has recently become available for widespread use in medicine, including the interpretation of digitized information, big data for tracking disease trends and patterns, and clinical diagnosis. Comparative studies and expert opinion support the validity of imaging and data analysis, yet similar validation is lacking in clinical diagnosis. Artificial intelligence programs are here compared with a diagnostic generator program in clinical neurology.
Methods: Using 4 nonrandomly selected case records from New England Journal of Medicine clinicopathologic conferences from 2017 to 2022, 2 artificial intelligence programs (ChatGPT-4 and GLASS AI) were compared with a neurological diagnostic generator program (NeurologicDx.com) for diagnostic capability and accuracy and source authentication.
Results: Compared with NeurologicDx.com, the 2 AI programs showed results varying with order of key term entry and with repeat querying. The diagnostic generator yielded more differential diagnostic entities, with correct diagnoses in 4 of 4 test cases versus 0 of 4 for ChatGPT-4 and 1 of 4 for GLASS AI, respectively, and with authentication of diagnostic entities compared with the AI programs.
Conclusions: The diagnostic generator NeurologicDx yielded a more robust and reproducible differential diagnostic list with higher diagnostic accuracy and associated authentication compared with artificial intelligence programs.
期刊介绍：
The Neurologist publishes articles on topics of current interest to physicians treating patients with neurological diseases. The core of the journal is review articles focusing on clinically relevant issues. The journal also publishes case reports or case series which review the literature and put observations in perspective, as well as letters to the editor. Special features include the popular "10 Most Commonly Asked Questions" and the "Patient and Family Fact Sheet," a handy tear-out page that can be copied to hand out to patients and their caregivers.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
