ChatGPT 与医生对药物相关问题的回答对比。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Danish medical journal Pub Date : 2024-12-11 DOI:10.61409/A05240360
Ole Kl Helgestad, Astrid J Hjelholt, Søren V Vestergaard, Samuel Azuz, Eva A Sædder, Thure F Overvad
{"title":"ChatGPT 与医生对药物相关问题的回答对比。","authors":"Ole Kl Helgestad, Astrid J Hjelholt, Søren V Vestergaard, Samuel Azuz, Eva A Sædder, Thure F Overvad","doi":"10.61409/A05240360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Large language models have recently gained interest within the medical community. Their clinical impact is currently being investigated, with potential application in pharmaceutical counselling, which has yet to be assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective investigation of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 in response to 49 consecutive inquiries encountered in the joint pharmaceutical counselling service of the Central and North Denmark regions. Answers were rated by comparing them with the answers generated by physicians.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 provided answers rated better or equal in 39 (80%) and 48 (98%) cases, respectively, compared to the pharmaceutical counselling service. References did not accompany answers from ChatGPT, and ChatGPT did not elaborate on what would be considered most clinically relevant when providing multiple answers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In drug-related questions, ChatGPT (4.0) provided answers of a reasonably high quality. The lack of references and an occasionally limited clinical interpretation makes it less useful as a primary source of information.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not relevant.</p>","PeriodicalId":11119,"journal":{"name":"Danish medical journal","volume":"72 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT versus physician-derived answers to drug-related questions.\",\"authors\":\"Ole Kl Helgestad, Astrid J Hjelholt, Søren V Vestergaard, Samuel Azuz, Eva A Sædder, Thure F Overvad\",\"doi\":\"10.61409/A05240360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Large language models have recently gained interest within the medical community. Their clinical impact is currently being investigated, with potential application in pharmaceutical counselling, which has yet to be assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective investigation of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 in response to 49 consecutive inquiries encountered in the joint pharmaceutical counselling service of the Central and North Denmark regions. Answers were rated by comparing them with the answers generated by physicians.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 provided answers rated better or equal in 39 (80%) and 48 (98%) cases, respectively, compared to the pharmaceutical counselling service. References did not accompany answers from ChatGPT, and ChatGPT did not elaborate on what would be considered most clinically relevant when providing multiple answers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In drug-related questions, ChatGPT (4.0) provided answers of a reasonably high quality. The lack of references and an occasionally limited clinical interpretation makes it less useful as a primary source of information.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not relevant.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11119,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Danish medical journal\",\"volume\":\"72 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Danish medical journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.61409/A05240360\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Danish medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61409/A05240360","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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 versus physician-derived answers to drug-related questions.

Introduction: Large language models have recently gained interest within the medical community. Their clinical impact is currently being investigated, with potential application in pharmaceutical counselling, which has yet to be assessed.

Methods: We performed a retrospective investigation of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 in response to 49 consecutive inquiries encountered in the joint pharmaceutical counselling service of the Central and North Denmark regions. Answers were rated by comparing them with the answers generated by physicians.

Results: ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 provided answers rated better or equal in 39 (80%) and 48 (98%) cases, respectively, compared to the pharmaceutical counselling service. References did not accompany answers from ChatGPT, and ChatGPT did not elaborate on what would be considered most clinically relevant when providing multiple answers.

Conclusions: In drug-related questions, ChatGPT (4.0) provided answers of a reasonably high quality. The lack of references and an occasionally limited clinical interpretation makes it less useful as a primary source of information.

Funding: None.

Trial registration: Not relevant.

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
Danish medical journal
Danish medical journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
78
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Danish Medical Journal (DMJ) is a general medical journal. The journal publish original research in English – conducted in or in relation to the Danish health-care system. When writing for the Danish Medical Journal please remember target audience which is the general reader. This means that the research area should be relevant to many readers and the paper should be presented in a way that most readers will understand the content. DMJ will publish the following articles: • Original articles • Protocol articles from large randomized clinical trials • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses • PhD theses from Danish faculties of health sciences • DMSc theses from Danish faculties of health sciences.
期刊最新文献
Blunt cerebrovascular injuries and association with cervical spine injury. Components of eye health checks provided by optician retail stores in Denmark. The effect of frenotomy in infants with ankyloglossia on maternal nipple pain - a systematic review. Arterial pH and short-term mortality in adult non-traumatic acute patients. ChatGPT versus physician-derived answers to drug-related questions.
×
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