产前健康营养和体重管理可带来积极的孕期体验:比较人工智能模型对孕期营养的反应。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS International Journal of Medical Informatics Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105663
Emine Karacan
{"title":"产前健康营养和体重管理可带来积极的孕期体验:比较人工智能模型对孕期营养的反应。","authors":"Emine Karacan","doi":"10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>As artificial intelligence AI-supported applications become integral to web-based information-seeking, assessing their impact on healthy nutrition and weight management during the antenatal period is crucial.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study was conducted to evaluate both the quality and semantic similarity of responses created by AI models to the most frequently asked questions about healthy nutrition and weight management during the antenatal period, based on existing clinical knowledge.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this study, a cross-sectional assessment design was used to explore data from 3 AI models (GPT-4, MedicalGPT, Med-PaLM). We directed the most frequently asked questions about nutrition during pregnancy, obtained from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to each model in a new and single session on October 21, 2023, without any prior conversation. Immediately after, instructions were given to the AI models to generate responses to these questions. The responses created by AI models were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) scale. Additionally, to assess the semantic similarity between answers to 31 pregnancy nutrition-related frequently asked questions sourced from the ACOG and responses from AI models we evaluated cosine similarity using both WORD2VEC and BioLORD-2023.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Med-PaLM outperformed GPT-4 and MedicalGPT in response quality (mean = 3.93), demonstrating superior clinical accuracy over both GPT-4 (p = 0.016) and MedicalGPT (p = 0.001). GPT-4 had higher quality than MedicalGPT (p = 0.027).</div><div>The semantic similarity between ACOG and Med-PaLM is higher with WORD2VEC (0.92) compared to BioLORD-2023 (0.81), showing a difference of +0.11. The similarity scores for ACOG–MedicalGPT and ACOG–GPT-4 are similar across both models, with minimal differences of −0.01. Overall, WORD2VEC has a slightly higher average similarity (0.82) than BioLORD-2023 (0.79), with a difference of +0.03.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Despite the superior performance of Med-PaLM, there is a need for further evidence-based research and improvement in the integration of AI in healthcare due to varying AI model performances.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54950,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","volume":"193 ","pages":"Article 105663"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthy nutrition and weight management for a positive pregnancy experience in the antenatal period: Comparison of responses from artificial intelligence models on nutrition during pregnancy\",\"authors\":\"Emine Karacan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>As artificial intelligence AI-supported applications become integral to web-based information-seeking, assessing their impact on healthy nutrition and weight management during the antenatal period is crucial.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study was conducted to evaluate both the quality and semantic similarity of responses created by AI models to the most frequently asked questions about healthy nutrition and weight management during the antenatal period, based on existing clinical knowledge.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this study, a cross-sectional assessment design was used to explore data from 3 AI models (GPT-4, MedicalGPT, Med-PaLM). We directed the most frequently asked questions about nutrition during pregnancy, obtained from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to each model in a new and single session on October 21, 2023, without any prior conversation. Immediately after, instructions were given to the AI models to generate responses to these questions. The responses created by AI models were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) scale. Additionally, to assess the semantic similarity between answers to 31 pregnancy nutrition-related frequently asked questions sourced from the ACOG and responses from AI models we evaluated cosine similarity using both WORD2VEC and BioLORD-2023.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Med-PaLM outperformed GPT-4 and MedicalGPT in response quality (mean = 3.93), demonstrating superior clinical accuracy over both GPT-4 (p = 0.016) and MedicalGPT (p = 0.001). GPT-4 had higher quality than MedicalGPT (p = 0.027).</div><div>The semantic similarity between ACOG and Med-PaLM is higher with WORD2VEC (0.92) compared to BioLORD-2023 (0.81), showing a difference of +0.11. The similarity scores for ACOG–MedicalGPT and ACOG–GPT-4 are similar across both models, with minimal differences of −0.01. Overall, WORD2VEC has a slightly higher average similarity (0.82) than BioLORD-2023 (0.79), with a difference of +0.03.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Despite the superior performance of Med-PaLM, there is a need for further evidence-based research and improvement in the integration of AI in healthcare due to varying AI model performances.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54950,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Medical Informatics\",\"volume\":\"193 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105663\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Medical Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505624003265\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505624003265","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:随着人工智能AI支持的应用程序成为网络信息搜索的组成部分,评估它们对产前健康营养和体重管理的影响至关重要:本研究以现有临床知识为基础,评估人工智能模型对产前健康营养和体重管理方面最常见问题所做回答的质量和语义相似性:本研究采用横断面评估设计,对 3 个人工智能模型(GPT-4、MedicalGPT、Med-PaLM)的数据进行研究。2023 年 10 月 21 日,我们将从美国妇产科医师学会(ACOG)获得的有关孕期营养的最常见问题,在没有任何事先交谈的情况下,以新的单次会议形式传授给每个模型。紧接着,向人工智能模型发出指令,让其生成对这些问题的回答。人工智能模型生成的回答采用建议评估、开发和评价分级法(GRADE)进行评估。此外,为了评估来自 ACOG 的 31 个妊娠营养相关常见问题的回答与人工智能模型的回答之间的语义相似性,我们使用 WORD2VEC 和 BioLORD-2023 评估了余弦相似性:Med-PaLM 的回答质量(平均值 = 3.93)优于 GPT-4 和 MedicalGPT,临床准确性优于 GPT-4 (p = 0.016) 和 MedicalGPT (p = 0.001)。GPT-4 的质量高于 MedicalGPT(p = 0.027)。ACOG 和 Med-PaLM 的语义相似度 WORD2VEC(0.92)高于 BioLORD-2023(0.81),两者相差+0.11。两个模型中 ACOG-MedicalGPT 和 ACOG-GPT-4 的相似度得分相似,差异极小,均为 -0.01。总体而言,WORD2VEC 的平均相似度(0.82)略高于 BioLORD-2023(0.79),差异为 +0.03:尽管 Med-PaLM 的性能优越,但由于人工智能模型的性能参差不齐,在将人工智能整合到医疗保健领域方面仍需要进一步的循证研究和改进。
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
Healthy nutrition and weight management for a positive pregnancy experience in the antenatal period: Comparison of responses from artificial intelligence models on nutrition during pregnancy

Background

As artificial intelligence AI-supported applications become integral to web-based information-seeking, assessing their impact on healthy nutrition and weight management during the antenatal period is crucial.

Objective

This study was conducted to evaluate both the quality and semantic similarity of responses created by AI models to the most frequently asked questions about healthy nutrition and weight management during the antenatal period, based on existing clinical knowledge.

Methods

In this study, a cross-sectional assessment design was used to explore data from 3 AI models (GPT-4, MedicalGPT, Med-PaLM). We directed the most frequently asked questions about nutrition during pregnancy, obtained from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to each model in a new and single session on October 21, 2023, without any prior conversation. Immediately after, instructions were given to the AI models to generate responses to these questions. The responses created by AI models were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) scale. Additionally, to assess the semantic similarity between answers to 31 pregnancy nutrition-related frequently asked questions sourced from the ACOG and responses from AI models we evaluated cosine similarity using both WORD2VEC and BioLORD-2023.

Results

Med-PaLM outperformed GPT-4 and MedicalGPT in response quality (mean = 3.93), demonstrating superior clinical accuracy over both GPT-4 (p = 0.016) and MedicalGPT (p = 0.001). GPT-4 had higher quality than MedicalGPT (p = 0.027).
The semantic similarity between ACOG and Med-PaLM is higher with WORD2VEC (0.92) compared to BioLORD-2023 (0.81), showing a difference of +0.11. The similarity scores for ACOG–MedicalGPT and ACOG–GPT-4 are similar across both models, with minimal differences of −0.01. Overall, WORD2VEC has a slightly higher average similarity (0.82) than BioLORD-2023 (0.79), with a difference of +0.03.

Conclusions

Despite the superior performance of Med-PaLM, there is a need for further evidence-based research and improvement in the integration of AI in healthcare due to varying AI model performances.
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
International Journal of Medical Informatics
International Journal of Medical Informatics 医学-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.10%
发文量
217
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: International Journal of Medical Informatics provides an international medium for dissemination of original results and interpretative reviews concerning the field of medical informatics. The Journal emphasizes the evaluation of systems in healthcare settings. The scope of journal covers: Information systems, including national or international registration systems, hospital information systems, departmental and/or physician''s office systems, document handling systems, electronic medical record systems, standardization, systems integration etc.; Computer-aided medical decision support systems using heuristic, algorithmic and/or statistical methods as exemplified in decision theory, protocol development, artificial intelligence, etc. Educational computer based programs pertaining to medical informatics or medicine in general; Organizational, economic, social, clinical impact, ethical and cost-benefit aspects of IT applications in health care.
期刊最新文献
Analysis of missing data in electronic health records of people with diabetes in primary care in Spain: A population-based cohort study Systematic construction of composite radiation therapy dataset using automated data pipeline for prognosis prediction Perceptions of healthcare professionals and patients with cardiovascular diseases on mHealth lifestyle apps: A qualitative study Smart data-driven medical decisions through collective and individual anomaly detection in healthcare time series An interpretable machine learning scoring tool for estimating time to recurrence readmissions in stroke patients
×
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