ChatGPT 及其在临床决策支持中的应用:范围综述。

Q3 Medicine Recenti progressi in medicina Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1701/4365.43602
Pierpaolo Giordano, Melissa D'Ambrosio, Mateo Banushaj, Chiara Pizzolo, Letizia Maria Iotti, Roberta Voci
{"title":"ChatGPT 及其在临床决策支持中的应用:范围综述。","authors":"Pierpaolo Giordano, Melissa D'Ambrosio, Mateo Banushaj, Chiara Pizzolo, Letizia Maria Iotti, Roberta Voci","doi":"10.1701/4365.43602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this scoping review is to shed light on the current state of the art regarding ChatGPT's potential applications in clinical decision support, as well as its accuracy, sensitivity, speed, and reliability in different clinical contexts (diagnosis, differential diagnosis, treatment, triage, surgical support). Most of the articles found were original research articles, with a few reviews and commentaries. A total of 225 articles were found, of which 50 were included based on retrieval and eligibility. ChatGPT performs well in diagnosis with complete data but struggles with incomplete or ambiguous information. Its differential diagnosis is inconsistent, especially in complex cases. It shows good sensitivity in treatment recommendations but lacks personalization and requires human oversight. In triage, ChatGPT is accurate, with high sensitivity for hospitalization decisions but lower specificity for safe discharges. For surgical support, it aids in planning but cannot adapt to intraoperative changes without human input. The results indicate that ChatGPT has potential in supporting clinical decisions but also highlights significant current limitations; that include the need for medical-specific adaptation, the risk of generating false (artificial hallucinations), incomplete, or misleading information, and ethical and legal issues that need to be addressed.</p>","PeriodicalId":20887,"journal":{"name":"Recenti progressi in medicina","volume":"115 11","pages":"560-561"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT e il suo utilizzo nel supporto decisionale clinico: una scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Pierpaolo Giordano, Melissa D'Ambrosio, Mateo Banushaj, Chiara Pizzolo, Letizia Maria Iotti, Roberta Voci\",\"doi\":\"10.1701/4365.43602\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this scoping review is to shed light on the current state of the art regarding ChatGPT's potential applications in clinical decision support, as well as its accuracy, sensitivity, speed, and reliability in different clinical contexts (diagnosis, differential diagnosis, treatment, triage, surgical support). Most of the articles found were original research articles, with a few reviews and commentaries. A total of 225 articles were found, of which 50 were included based on retrieval and eligibility. ChatGPT performs well in diagnosis with complete data but struggles with incomplete or ambiguous information. Its differential diagnosis is inconsistent, especially in complex cases. It shows good sensitivity in treatment recommendations but lacks personalization and requires human oversight. In triage, ChatGPT is accurate, with high sensitivity for hospitalization decisions but lower specificity for safe discharges. For surgical support, it aids in planning but cannot adapt to intraoperative changes without human input. The results indicate that ChatGPT has potential in supporting clinical decisions but also highlights significant current limitations; that include the need for medical-specific adaptation, the risk of generating false (artificial hallucinations), incomplete, or misleading information, and ethical and legal issues that need to be addressed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20887,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Recenti progressi in medicina\",\"volume\":\"115 11\",\"pages\":\"560-561\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Recenti progressi in medicina\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1701/4365.43602\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recenti progressi in medicina","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1701/4365.43602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本范围综述旨在揭示 ChatGPT 在临床决策支持中的潜在应用及其在不同临床环境(诊断、鉴别诊断、治疗、分诊、手术支持)中的准确性、灵敏度、速度和可靠性方面的技术现状。所发现的大部分文章都是原创研究文章,也有少数评论和评论文章。共找到 225 篇文章,根据检索和资格审查结果,纳入了其中的 50 篇。ChatGPT 在数据完整的情况下诊断效果良好,但在信息不完整或不明确的情况下就很难发挥作用。它的鉴别诊断不一致,尤其是在复杂病例中。它在治疗建议方面显示出良好的灵敏度,但缺乏个性化,需要人工监督。在分诊方面,ChatGPT 是准确的,对住院决定有较高的灵敏度,但对安全出院的特异性较低。在手术支持方面,它有助于制定计划,但在没有人工输入的情况下无法适应术中的变化。研究结果表明,ChatGPT 在支持临床决策方面具有潜力,但也凸显了目前存在的重大局限性,其中包括需要针对具体医疗情况进行调整,存在产生错误(人为幻觉)、不完整或误导性信息的风险,以及需要解决的伦理和法律问题。
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
ChatGPT e il suo utilizzo nel supporto decisionale clinico: una scoping review.

The aim of this scoping review is to shed light on the current state of the art regarding ChatGPT's potential applications in clinical decision support, as well as its accuracy, sensitivity, speed, and reliability in different clinical contexts (diagnosis, differential diagnosis, treatment, triage, surgical support). Most of the articles found were original research articles, with a few reviews and commentaries. A total of 225 articles were found, of which 50 were included based on retrieval and eligibility. ChatGPT performs well in diagnosis with complete data but struggles with incomplete or ambiguous information. Its differential diagnosis is inconsistent, especially in complex cases. It shows good sensitivity in treatment recommendations but lacks personalization and requires human oversight. In triage, ChatGPT is accurate, with high sensitivity for hospitalization decisions but lower specificity for safe discharges. For surgical support, it aids in planning but cannot adapt to intraoperative changes without human input. The results indicate that ChatGPT has potential in supporting clinical decisions but also highlights significant current limitations; that include the need for medical-specific adaptation, the risk of generating false (artificial hallucinations), incomplete, or misleading information, and ethical and legal issues that need to be addressed.

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
Recenti progressi in medicina
Recenti progressi in medicina Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
143
期刊介绍: Giunta ormai al sessantesimo anno, Recenti Progressi in Medicina continua a costituire un sicuro punto di riferimento ed uno strumento di lavoro fondamentale per l"ampliamento dell"orizzonte culturale del medico italiano. Recenti Progressi in Medicina è una rivista di medicina interna. Ciò significa il recupero di un"ottica globale e integrata, idonea ad evitare sia i particolarismi della informazione specialistica sia la frammentazione di quella generalista.
期刊最新文献
(Con)fine della salute: restituzione del lavoro di un ambulatorio popolare dai margini della città. [GLP-1 agonists reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events in older patients with type 2 diabetes, and SGLT2 inhibitors prevent hospitalizations for acute heart failure.] [Impact of Elon Musk's statements on the use of semaglutide in the Lazio Region: a time series analysis study.] [Effective treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection in adults: the 2024 American College of Gastroenterology guideline recommendations.] [Patients with heart failure experience fewer hospitalizations and reduced mortality when treated with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.]
×
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