探索大语言模型在血液学中的作用:对应用、益处和局限性的重点回顾。

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY British Journal of Haematology Pub Date : 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1111/bjh.19738
Aya Mudrik, Girish N Nadkarni, Orly Efros, Benjamin S Glicksberg, Eyal Klang, Shelly Soffer
{"title":"探索大语言模型在血液学中的作用:对应用、益处和局限性的重点回顾。","authors":"Aya Mudrik, Girish N Nadkarni, Orly Efros, Benjamin S Glicksberg, Eyal Klang, Shelly Soffer","doi":"10.1111/bjh.19738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Large language models (LLMs) have significantly impacted various fields with their ability to understand and generate human-like text. This study explores the potential benefits and limitations of integrating LLMs, such as ChatGPT, into haematology practices. Utilizing systematic review methodologies, we analysed studies published after 1 December 2022, from databases like PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, and assessing each for bias with the QUADAS-2 tool. We reviewed 10 studies that applied LLMs in various haematology contexts. These models demonstrated proficiency in specific tasks, such as achieving 76% diagnostic accuracy for haemoglobinopathies. However, the research highlighted inconsistencies in performance and reference accuracy, indicating variability in reliability across different uses. Additionally, the limited scope of these studies and constraints on datasets could potentially limit the generalizability of our findings. The findings suggest that, while LLMs provide notable advantages in enhancing diagnostic processes and educational resources within haematology, their integration into clinical practice requires careful consideration. Before implementing them in haematology, rigorous testing and specific adaptation are essential. This involves validating their accuracy and reliability across different scenarios. Given the field's complexity, it is also critical to continuously monitor these models and adapt them responsively.</p>","PeriodicalId":135,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Haematology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the role of Large Language Models in haematology: A focused review of applications, benefits and limitations.\",\"authors\":\"Aya Mudrik, Girish N Nadkarni, Orly Efros, Benjamin S Glicksberg, Eyal Klang, Shelly Soffer\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjh.19738\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Large language models (LLMs) have significantly impacted various fields with their ability to understand and generate human-like text. This study explores the potential benefits and limitations of integrating LLMs, such as ChatGPT, into haematology practices. Utilizing systematic review methodologies, we analysed studies published after 1 December 2022, from databases like PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, and assessing each for bias with the QUADAS-2 tool. We reviewed 10 studies that applied LLMs in various haematology contexts. These models demonstrated proficiency in specific tasks, such as achieving 76% diagnostic accuracy for haemoglobinopathies. However, the research highlighted inconsistencies in performance and reference accuracy, indicating variability in reliability across different uses. Additionally, the limited scope of these studies and constraints on datasets could potentially limit the generalizability of our findings. The findings suggest that, while LLMs provide notable advantages in enhancing diagnostic processes and educational resources within haematology, their integration into clinical practice requires careful consideration. Before implementing them in haematology, rigorous testing and specific adaptation are essential. This involves validating their accuracy and reliability across different scenarios. Given the field's complexity, it is also critical to continuously monitor these models and adapt them responsively.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Haematology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Haematology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.19738\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Haematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.19738","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大语言模型(LLM)能够理解和生成类人文本,对各个领域产生了重大影响。本研究探讨了将 ChatGPT 等大型语言模型整合到血液学实践中的潜在优势和局限性。我们利用系统综述方法,从 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Scopus 等数据库中分析了 2022 年 12 月 1 日之后发表的研究,并使用 QUADAS-2 工具评估了每项研究的偏倚性。我们审查了将 LLM 应用于各种血液学环境的 10 项研究。这些模型展示了在特定任务中的能力,如血红蛋白病诊断准确率达到 76%。不过,研究强调了性能和参考准确性的不一致性,表明不同用途的可靠性存在差异。此外,这些研究的范围有限以及数据集的限制可能会限制我们研究结果的推广性。研究结果表明,尽管 LLM 在增强血液学诊断流程和教育资源方面具有显著优势,但将其融入临床实践仍需慎重考虑。在血液学中应用 LLMs 之前,必须进行严格的测试和具体的调整。这包括在不同情况下验证其准确性和可靠性。鉴于该领域的复杂性,持续监控这些模型并对其进行相应调整也至关重要。
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
Exploring the role of Large Language Models in haematology: A focused review of applications, benefits and limitations.

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly impacted various fields with their ability to understand and generate human-like text. This study explores the potential benefits and limitations of integrating LLMs, such as ChatGPT, into haematology practices. Utilizing systematic review methodologies, we analysed studies published after 1 December 2022, from databases like PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, and assessing each for bias with the QUADAS-2 tool. We reviewed 10 studies that applied LLMs in various haematology contexts. These models demonstrated proficiency in specific tasks, such as achieving 76% diagnostic accuracy for haemoglobinopathies. However, the research highlighted inconsistencies in performance and reference accuracy, indicating variability in reliability across different uses. Additionally, the limited scope of these studies and constraints on datasets could potentially limit the generalizability of our findings. The findings suggest that, while LLMs provide notable advantages in enhancing diagnostic processes and educational resources within haematology, their integration into clinical practice requires careful consideration. Before implementing them in haematology, rigorous testing and specific adaptation are essential. This involves validating their accuracy and reliability across different scenarios. Given the field's complexity, it is also critical to continuously monitor these models and adapt them responsively.

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
8.60
自引率
4.60%
发文量
565
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Haematology publishes original research papers in clinical, laboratory and experimental haematology. The Journal also features annotations, reviews, short reports, images in haematology and Letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell therapy for haematological malignancies: Insights from fundamental and translational research to bedside practice Telomere length and DNA methylation epitype both provide independent prognostic information in CLL patients; data from the UK CLL4, ARCTIC and ADMIRE clinical trials Integrating chemokines and machine learning algorithms for diagnosis and bleeding assessment in primary immune thrombocytopenia: A prospective cohort study Major reduction in occurrence of anti‐c and anti‐E in pregnancy after more than 10 years of preventive matched transfusion with most benefit for c‐matching
×
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