在线症状评估应用程序、大型语言模型和外行人自我分诊决策的准确性:系统回顾

Marvin Kopka, Niklas von Kalckreuth, Markus A. Feufel
{"title":"在线症状评估应用程序、大型语言模型和外行人自我分诊决策的准确性:系统回顾","authors":"Marvin Kopka, Niklas von Kalckreuth, Markus A. Feufel","doi":"10.1101/2024.09.13.24313657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Symptom-Assessment Application (SAAs, e.g., NHS 111 online) that assist medical laypeople in deciding if and where to seek care (self-triage) are gaining popularity and their accuracy has been examined in numerous studies. With the public release of Large Language Models (LLMs, e.g., ChatGPT), their use in such decision-making processes is growing as well. However, there is currently no comprehensive evidence synthesis for LLMs, and no review has contextualized the accuracy of SAAs and LLMs relative to the accuracy of their users. Thus, this systematic review evaluates the self-triage accuracy of both SAAs and LLMs and compares them to the accuracy of medical laypeople. A total of 1549 studies were screened, with 19 included in the final analysis. The self-triage accuracy of SAAs was found to be moderate but highly variable (11.5 - 90.0%), while the accuracy of LLMs (57.8 - 76.0%) and laypeople (47.3 - 62.4%) was moderate with low variability. Despite some published recommendations to standardize evaluation methodologies, there remains considerable heterogeneity among studies. The use of SAAs should not be universally recommended or discouraged; rather, their utility should be assessed based on the specific use case and tool under consideration.","PeriodicalId":501454,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Health Informatics","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Online Symptom-Assessment Applications, Large Language Models, and Laypeople for Self-Triage Decisions: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Marvin Kopka, Niklas von Kalckreuth, Markus A. Feufel\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.09.13.24313657\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Symptom-Assessment Application (SAAs, e.g., NHS 111 online) that assist medical laypeople in deciding if and where to seek care (self-triage) are gaining popularity and their accuracy has been examined in numerous studies. With the public release of Large Language Models (LLMs, e.g., ChatGPT), their use in such decision-making processes is growing as well. However, there is currently no comprehensive evidence synthesis for LLMs, and no review has contextualized the accuracy of SAAs and LLMs relative to the accuracy of their users. Thus, this systematic review evaluates the self-triage accuracy of both SAAs and LLMs and compares them to the accuracy of medical laypeople. A total of 1549 studies were screened, with 19 included in the final analysis. The self-triage accuracy of SAAs was found to be moderate but highly variable (11.5 - 90.0%), while the accuracy of LLMs (57.8 - 76.0%) and laypeople (47.3 - 62.4%) was moderate with low variability. Despite some published recommendations to standardize evaluation methodologies, there remains considerable heterogeneity among studies. The use of SAAs should not be universally recommended or discouraged; rather, their utility should be assessed based on the specific use case and tool under consideration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Health Informatics\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Health Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.13.24313657\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Health Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.13.24313657","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

症状评估应用程序(SAA,如英国国家医疗服务系统 111 在线)可帮助非专业医疗人员决定是否就医以及去哪里就医(自我分诊),这种应用程序越来越受欢迎,许多研究都对其准确性进行了检验。随着大型语言模型(LLMs,如 ChatGPT)的公开发布,它们在此类决策过程中的应用也在不断增加。然而,目前还没有针对 LLMs 的全面证据综述,也没有综述将 SAA 和 LLMs 的准确性与其用户的准确性相对比。因此,本系统综述对 SAA 和 LLM 的自我分诊准确性进行了评估,并将其与非专业医务人员的准确性进行了比较。共筛选出 1549 项研究,其中 19 项纳入最终分析。结果发现,SAA 的自我分诊准确率为中等,但变异较大(11.5 - 90.0%),而 LLM(57.8 - 76.0%)和非专业人士(47.3 - 62.4%)的准确率为中等,变异较小。尽管已发表了一些关于评估方法标准化的建议,但不同研究之间仍存在相当大的异质性。不应普遍推荐或不鼓励使用SAA;相反,应根据具体的使用情况和所考虑的工具来评估其效用。
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
Accuracy of Online Symptom-Assessment Applications, Large Language Models, and Laypeople for Self-Triage Decisions: A Systematic Review
Symptom-Assessment Application (SAAs, e.g., NHS 111 online) that assist medical laypeople in deciding if and where to seek care (self-triage) are gaining popularity and their accuracy has been examined in numerous studies. With the public release of Large Language Models (LLMs, e.g., ChatGPT), their use in such decision-making processes is growing as well. However, there is currently no comprehensive evidence synthesis for LLMs, and no review has contextualized the accuracy of SAAs and LLMs relative to the accuracy of their users. Thus, this systematic review evaluates the self-triage accuracy of both SAAs and LLMs and compares them to the accuracy of medical laypeople. A total of 1549 studies were screened, with 19 included in the final analysis. The self-triage accuracy of SAAs was found to be moderate but highly variable (11.5 - 90.0%), while the accuracy of LLMs (57.8 - 76.0%) and laypeople (47.3 - 62.4%) was moderate with low variability. Despite some published recommendations to standardize evaluation methodologies, there remains considerable heterogeneity among studies. The use of SAAs should not be universally recommended or discouraged; rather, their utility should be assessed based on the specific use case and tool under consideration.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A case is not a case is not a case - challenges and solutions in determining urolithiasis caseloads using the digital infrastructure of a clinical data warehouse Reliable Online Auditory Cognitive Testing: An observational study Federated Multiple Imputation for Variables that Are Missing Not At Random in Distributed Electronic Health Records Characterizing the connection between Parkinson's disease progression and healthcare utilization Generative AI and Large Language Models in Reducing Medication Related Harm and Adverse Drug Events - A Scoping Review
×
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