评估胃肠道手术抗凝管理中使用和不使用检索增强型 ChatGPT4 的情况。

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-19 DOI:10.20524/aog.2024.0907
Sheza Malik, Himal Kharel, Dushyant S Dahiya, Hassam Ali, Hanna Blaney, Achintya Singh, Jahnvi Dhar, Abhilash Perisetti, Antonio Facciorusso, Saurabh Chandan, Babu P Mohan
{"title":"评估胃肠道手术抗凝管理中使用和不使用检索增强型 ChatGPT4 的情况。","authors":"Sheza Malik, Himal Kharel, Dushyant S Dahiya, Hassam Ali, Hanna Blaney, Achintya Singh, Jahnvi Dhar, Abhilash Perisetti, Antonio Facciorusso, Saurabh Chandan, Babu P Mohan","doi":"10.20524/aog.2024.0907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In view of the growing complexity of managing anticoagulation for patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) procedures, this study evaluated ChatGPT-4's ability to provide accurate medical guidance, comparing it with its prior artificial intelligence (AI) models (ChatGPT-3.5) and the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-supported model (ChatGPT4-RAG).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-six anticoagulation-related questions, based on professional guidelines, were answered by ChatGPT-4. Nine gastroenterologists assessed these responses for accuracy and relevance. ChatGPT-4's performance was also compared to that of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT4-RAG. Additionally, a survey was conducted to understand gastroenterologists' perceptions of ChatGPT-4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT-4's responses showed significantly better accuracy and coherence compared to ChatGPT-3.5, with 30.5% of responses fully accurate and 47.2% generally accurate. ChatGPT4-RAG demonstrated a higher ability to integrate current information, achieving 75% full accuracy. Notably, for diagnostic and therapeutic esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 51.8% of responses were fully accurate; for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with and without stent placement, 42.8% were fully accurate; and for diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy, 50% were fully accurate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT4-RAG significantly advances anticoagulation management in endoscopic procedures, offering reliable and precise medical guidance. However, medicolegal considerations mean that a 75% full accuracy rate remains inadequate for independent clinical decision-making. AI may be more appropriately utilized to support and confirm clinicians' decisions, rather than replace them. Further evaluation is essential to maintain patient confidentiality and the integrity of the physician-patient relationship.</p>","PeriodicalId":7978,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11372545/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing ChatGPT4 with and without retrieval-augmented generation in anticoagulation management for gastrointestinal procedures.\",\"authors\":\"Sheza Malik, Himal Kharel, Dushyant S Dahiya, Hassam Ali, Hanna Blaney, Achintya Singh, Jahnvi Dhar, Abhilash Perisetti, Antonio Facciorusso, Saurabh Chandan, Babu P Mohan\",\"doi\":\"10.20524/aog.2024.0907\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In view of the growing complexity of managing anticoagulation for patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) procedures, this study evaluated ChatGPT-4's ability to provide accurate medical guidance, comparing it with its prior artificial intelligence (AI) models (ChatGPT-3.5) and the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-supported model (ChatGPT4-RAG).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-six anticoagulation-related questions, based on professional guidelines, were answered by ChatGPT-4. Nine gastroenterologists assessed these responses for accuracy and relevance. ChatGPT-4's performance was also compared to that of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT4-RAG. Additionally, a survey was conducted to understand gastroenterologists' perceptions of ChatGPT-4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT-4's responses showed significantly better accuracy and coherence compared to ChatGPT-3.5, with 30.5% of responses fully accurate and 47.2% generally accurate. ChatGPT4-RAG demonstrated a higher ability to integrate current information, achieving 75% full accuracy. Notably, for diagnostic and therapeutic esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 51.8% of responses were fully accurate; for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with and without stent placement, 42.8% were fully accurate; and for diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy, 50% were fully accurate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT4-RAG significantly advances anticoagulation management in endoscopic procedures, offering reliable and precise medical guidance. However, medicolegal considerations mean that a 75% full accuracy rate remains inadequate for independent clinical decision-making. AI may be more appropriately utilized to support and confirm clinicians' decisions, rather than replace them. Further evaluation is essential to maintain patient confidentiality and the integrity of the physician-patient relationship.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11372545/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0907\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0907","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:鉴于胃肠道(GI)手术患者的抗凝管理日益复杂,本研究评估了 ChatGPT-4 提供准确医疗指导的能力,并将其与之前的人工智能(AI)模型(ChatGPT-3.5)和检索增强生成(RAG)支持模型(ChatGPT4-RAG)进行了比较:ChatGPT-4 根据专业指南回答了 36 个与抗凝相关的问题。九位消化科专家对这些回答的准确性和相关性进行了评估。还将 ChatGPT-4 的性能与 ChatGPT-3.5 和 ChatGPT4-RAG 进行了比较。此外,还进行了一项调查,以了解消化科医生对 ChatGPT-4 的看法:结果:与 ChatGPT-3.5 相比,ChatGPT-4 的回答在准确性和连贯性方面有明显提高,30.5% 的回答完全准确,47.2% 的回答基本准确。ChatGPT4-RAG 整合当前信息的能力更强,完全准确率达到 75%。值得注意的是,对于诊断性和治疗性食管胃十二指肠镜检查,51.8% 的回答完全准确;对于带或不带支架的内镜逆行胰胆管造影术,42.8% 的回答完全准确;对于诊断性和治疗性结肠镜检查,50% 的回答完全准确:结论:ChatGPT4-RAG 为内窥镜手术中的抗凝管理提供了可靠而精确的医疗指导,大大提高了内窥镜手术中的抗凝管理水平。然而,出于医疗法律方面的考虑,75% 的完全准确率仍不足以用于独立的临床决策。人工智能可能更适合用来支持和确认临床医生的决策,而不是取代他们。进一步的评估对于维护病人的保密性和医患关系的完整性至关重要。
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
Assessing ChatGPT4 with and without retrieval-augmented generation in anticoagulation management for gastrointestinal procedures.

Background: In view of the growing complexity of managing anticoagulation for patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) procedures, this study evaluated ChatGPT-4's ability to provide accurate medical guidance, comparing it with its prior artificial intelligence (AI) models (ChatGPT-3.5) and the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-supported model (ChatGPT4-RAG).

Methods: Thirty-six anticoagulation-related questions, based on professional guidelines, were answered by ChatGPT-4. Nine gastroenterologists assessed these responses for accuracy and relevance. ChatGPT-4's performance was also compared to that of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT4-RAG. Additionally, a survey was conducted to understand gastroenterologists' perceptions of ChatGPT-4.

Results: ChatGPT-4's responses showed significantly better accuracy and coherence compared to ChatGPT-3.5, with 30.5% of responses fully accurate and 47.2% generally accurate. ChatGPT4-RAG demonstrated a higher ability to integrate current information, achieving 75% full accuracy. Notably, for diagnostic and therapeutic esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 51.8% of responses were fully accurate; for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with and without stent placement, 42.8% were fully accurate; and for diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy, 50% were fully accurate.

Conclusions: ChatGPT4-RAG significantly advances anticoagulation management in endoscopic procedures, offering reliable and precise medical guidance. However, medicolegal considerations mean that a 75% full accuracy rate remains inadequate for independent clinical decision-making. AI may be more appropriately utilized to support and confirm clinicians' decisions, rather than replace them. Further evaluation is essential to maintain patient confidentiality and the integrity of the physician-patient relationship.

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
Annals of Gastroenterology
Annals of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
Inflammatory bowel disease burden in the Middle East and North Africa Region: a comprehensive analysis of incidence, prevalence, and mortality from 1990-2019. Meandering main pancreatic duct syndrome: a single-center cohort study and aggregated review. Micronutrient deficiencies in older patients with inflammatory bowel disease are not associated with worse adverse clinical outcome rates. Safe outpatient discharge after gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation and analgesia: a systematic literature review. The effect of shortening vasoactive drug durations alongside endoscopic therapy in esophageal variceal bleeding: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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