医学和医疗保健领域的 ChatGPT 伦理学:关于大型语言模型 (LLM) 的系统综述

IF 12.4 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES NPJ Digital Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-08 DOI:10.1038/s41746-024-01157-x
Joschka Haltaufderheide, Robert Ranisch
{"title":"医学和医疗保健领域的 ChatGPT 伦理学:关于大型语言模型 (LLM) 的系统综述","authors":"Joschka Haltaufderheide, Robert Ranisch","doi":"10.1038/s41746-024-01157-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the introduction of ChatGPT, Large Language Models (LLMs) have received enormous attention in healthcare. Despite potential benefits, researchers have underscored various ethical implications. While individual instances have garnered attention, a systematic and comprehensive overview of practical applications currently researched and ethical issues connected to them is lacking. Against this background, this work maps the ethical landscape surrounding the current deployment of LLMs in medicine and healthcare through a systematic review. Electronic databases and preprint servers were queried using a comprehensive search strategy which generated 796 records. Studies were screened and extracted following a modified rapid review approach. Methodological quality was assessed using a hybrid approach. For 53 records, a meta-aggregative synthesis was performed. Four general fields of applications emerged showcasing a dynamic exploration phase. Advantages of using LLMs are attributed to their capacity in data analysis, information provisioning, support in decision-making or mitigating information loss and enhancing information accessibility. However, our study also identifies recurrent ethical concerns connected to fairness, bias, non-maleficence, transparency, and privacy. A distinctive concern is the tendency to produce harmful or convincing but inaccurate content. Calls for ethical guidance and human oversight are recurrent. We suggest that the ethical guidance debate should be reframed to focus on defining what constitutes acceptable human oversight across the spectrum of applications. This involves considering the diversity of settings, varying potentials for harm, and different acceptable thresholds for performance and certainty in healthcare. Additionally, critical inquiry is needed to evaluate the necessity and justification of LLMs’ current experimental use.","PeriodicalId":19349,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Digital Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01157-x.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ethics of ChatGPT in medicine and healthcare: a systematic review on Large Language Models (LLMs)\",\"authors\":\"Joschka Haltaufderheide, Robert Ranisch\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41746-024-01157-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With the introduction of ChatGPT, Large Language Models (LLMs) have received enormous attention in healthcare. Despite potential benefits, researchers have underscored various ethical implications. While individual instances have garnered attention, a systematic and comprehensive overview of practical applications currently researched and ethical issues connected to them is lacking. Against this background, this work maps the ethical landscape surrounding the current deployment of LLMs in medicine and healthcare through a systematic review. Electronic databases and preprint servers were queried using a comprehensive search strategy which generated 796 records. Studies were screened and extracted following a modified rapid review approach. Methodological quality was assessed using a hybrid approach. For 53 records, a meta-aggregative synthesis was performed. Four general fields of applications emerged showcasing a dynamic exploration phase. Advantages of using LLMs are attributed to their capacity in data analysis, information provisioning, support in decision-making or mitigating information loss and enhancing information accessibility. However, our study also identifies recurrent ethical concerns connected to fairness, bias, non-maleficence, transparency, and privacy. A distinctive concern is the tendency to produce harmful or convincing but inaccurate content. Calls for ethical guidance and human oversight are recurrent. We suggest that the ethical guidance debate should be reframed to focus on defining what constitutes acceptable human oversight across the spectrum of applications. This involves considering the diversity of settings, varying potentials for harm, and different acceptable thresholds for performance and certainty in healthcare. Additionally, critical inquiry is needed to evaluate the necessity and justification of LLMs’ current experimental use.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NPJ Digital Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01157-x.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NPJ Digital Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01157-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Digital Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01157-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着 ChatGPT 的推出,大型语言模型(LLM)在医疗保健领域受到了极大关注。尽管有潜在的好处,但研究人员也强调了各种伦理问题。虽然个别案例引起了人们的关注,但对目前研究的实际应用以及与之相关的伦理问题却缺乏系统而全面的概述。在此背景下,本研究通过系统性综述,描绘了当前医学和医疗领域应用法律硕士的伦理前景。采用综合搜索策略查询了电子数据库和预印本服务器,共获得 796 条记录。采用修改后的快速综述方法对研究进行筛选和提取。采用混合方法对方法学质量进行了评估。对 53 条记录进行了元汇总综合。在动态探索阶段,出现了四大应用领域。使用 LLM 的优势在于其在数据分析、信息提供、决策支持或减少信息丢失以及提高信息可获取性方面的能力。不过,我们的研究也发现了与公平、偏见、非恶意、透明度和隐私有关的经常性伦理问题。一个突出的问题是产生有害或有说服力但不准确内容的倾向。伦理指导和人为监督的呼声一再出现。我们建议,伦理指导的争论应重新定位,将重点放在界定在各种应用中什么是可接受的人工监督上。这就需要考虑到医疗环境的多样性、造成伤害的不同可能性以及对性能和确定性的不同可接受阈值。此外,还需要进行批判性调查,以评估目前试验性使用 LLMs 的必要性和合理性。
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

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
The ethics of ChatGPT in medicine and healthcare: a systematic review on Large Language Models (LLMs)
With the introduction of ChatGPT, Large Language Models (LLMs) have received enormous attention in healthcare. Despite potential benefits, researchers have underscored various ethical implications. While individual instances have garnered attention, a systematic and comprehensive overview of practical applications currently researched and ethical issues connected to them is lacking. Against this background, this work maps the ethical landscape surrounding the current deployment of LLMs in medicine and healthcare through a systematic review. Electronic databases and preprint servers were queried using a comprehensive search strategy which generated 796 records. Studies were screened and extracted following a modified rapid review approach. Methodological quality was assessed using a hybrid approach. For 53 records, a meta-aggregative synthesis was performed. Four general fields of applications emerged showcasing a dynamic exploration phase. Advantages of using LLMs are attributed to their capacity in data analysis, information provisioning, support in decision-making or mitigating information loss and enhancing information accessibility. However, our study also identifies recurrent ethical concerns connected to fairness, bias, non-maleficence, transparency, and privacy. A distinctive concern is the tendency to produce harmful or convincing but inaccurate content. Calls for ethical guidance and human oversight are recurrent. We suggest that the ethical guidance debate should be reframed to focus on defining what constitutes acceptable human oversight across the spectrum of applications. This involves considering the diversity of settings, varying potentials for harm, and different acceptable thresholds for performance and certainty in healthcare. Additionally, critical inquiry is needed to evaluate the necessity and justification of LLMs’ current experimental use.
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
25.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
170
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Digital Medicine is an online open-access journal that focuses on publishing peer-reviewed research in the field of digital medicine. The journal covers various aspects of digital medicine, including the application and implementation of digital and mobile technologies in clinical settings, virtual healthcare, and the use of artificial intelligence and informatics. The primary goal of the journal is to support innovation and the advancement of healthcare through the integration of new digital and mobile technologies. When determining if a manuscript is suitable for publication, the journal considers four important criteria: novelty, clinical relevance, scientific rigor, and digital innovation.
期刊最新文献
Automated decision making in Barrett’s oesophagus: development and deployment of a natural language processing tool The adaptation of a single institution diabetes care platform into a nationally available turnkey solution Deep learning based highly accurate transplanted bioengineered corneal equivalent thickness measurement using optical coherence tomography Artificial intelligence applied to coronary artery calcium scans (AI-CAC) significantly improves cardiovascular events prediction Bridging organ transcriptomics for advancing multiple organ toxicity assessment with a generative AI approach
×
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