Search

Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) has long garnered significant interest in the medical field. Large language models (LLMs) have popularized the use of AI for the public through chatbots such as ChatGPT and have become an easily accessible and recognizable medical resource for medical students. Here, we investigate how medical students are currently utilizing LLM-based tools throughout medical education and examine medical student perception of these tools. Methods A cross-sectional survey was administered to current medical students at the University of Florida College of Medicine (UFCOM) in January 2024 discussing the utilization of AI and LLM tools and perspectives on the current and future role of AI in medicine. Results All 102 respondents reported having heard of LLM-based chatbots such as ChatGPT, Bard, Bing Chat, and Claude. Sixty-nine percent (69%; 70/102) of respondents reported having used them for medical-related purposes at least once a month. Seventy-seven point one percent (77.1%; 54/70) reported the information provided by them to be very accurate or somewhat accurate, and 80% (55/70) reported that they were likely to continue using them in their future medical practice. Those with some baseline understanding of and exposure to AI were 3.26 (p=0.020) and 4.30 (p=0.002) times more likely to have used an LLM-based chatbot, respectively, and 5.06 (p=0.021) and 3.38 (p=0.039) times more likely to cross-check information obtained from them, respectively, compared to those with little to no baseline understanding or exposure. Furthermore, those with some exposure to AI in medical school were 2.70 (p=0.039) and 4.61 (p=0.0004) times more likely to trust AI with clinical decision-making currently and in the next 5 years, respectively, than those with little to no exposure. Those who had used an LLM-based chatbot were 4.31 (p=0.019) times more likely to trust AI with clinical decision-making currently compared to those who had not used one. Conclusion LLM-based chatbots, such as ChatGPT, are not only making their way into the medical student repertoire of study resources but are also being utilized in the setting of patient care and research. Medical students who participated in the survey generally had a positive perception of LLM-based chatbots and reported they were likely to continue using them in the future. Previous AI knowledge and exposure correlated with more conscientious use of these tools such as cross-checking information. Combined with our finding that all respondents believed AI should be taught in the medical curriculum, our study highlights a key opportunity in medical education to acclimate medical students to AI now., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent for treatment and open access publication was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. University of Florida (UF) IRB issued approval Exemption ET00022207 (dated 01/18/2024). Based on the information you submitted below, your research meets the criteria for exempt research, and you are authorized to conduct your research as it is described. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Xu et al.)

Introduction Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has evolved over the last three decades as a less invasive alternative to traditional spine surgery, offering benefits such as smaller incisions, faster recovery, and lower complication rates. With patients frequently seeking information about MISS online, the comprehensibility and accuracy of this information are crucial. Recent studies have shown that much of the online material regarding spine surgery exceeds the recommended readability levels, making it difficult for patients to understand. This study explores the clinical appropriateness and readability of responses generated by Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about MISS. Methods A set of 15 FAQs was formulated based on clinical expertise and existing literature on MISS. Each question was independently inputted into ChatGPT five times, and the generated responses were evaluated by three neurosurgery attendings for clinical appropriateness. Appropriateness was judged based on accuracy, readability, and patient accessibility. Readability was assessed using seven standardized readability tests, including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) scores. Statistical analysis was performed to compare readability scores across preoperative, postoperative, and intraoperative/technical question categories. Results The mean readability scores for preoperative, postoperative, and intraoperative/technical questions were 15±2.8, 16±3, and 15.7±3.2, respectively, significantly exceeding the recommended sixth- to eighth-grade reading level for patient education (p=0.017). Differences in readability across individual questions were also statistically significant (p<0.001). All responses required a reading level above 11th grade, with a majority indicating college-level comprehension. Although preoperative and postoperative questions generally elicited clinically appropriate responses, 50% of intraoperative/technical questions yielded either "inappropriate" or "unreliable" responses, particularly for inquiries about radiation exposure and the use of lasers in MISS. Conclusions While ChatGPT is proficient in providing clinically appropriate responses to certain FAQs about MISS, it frequently produces responses that exceed the recommended readability level for patient education. This limitation suggests that its utility may be confined to highly educated patients, potentially exacerbating existing disparities in patient comprehension. Future AI-based patient education tools must prioritize clear and accessible communication, with oversight from medical professionals to ensure accuracy and appropriateness. Further research comparing ChatGPT's performance with other AI models could enhance its application in patient education across medical specialties., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Sarikonda et al.)

Aims and Objectives: This study evaluates the accuracy of two AI language models, ChatGPT 4.0 and Google Gemini (as of August 2024), in answering a set of 79 text-based pediatric radiology questions from "Pediatric Imaging: A Core Review." Accurate interpretation of text and images is critical in radiology, making AI tools valuable in medical education., Methods: The study involved 79 questions selected from a pediatric radiology question set, focusing solely on text-based questions. ChatGPT 4.0 and Google Gemini answered these questions, and their responses were evaluated using a binary scoring system. Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests and relative risk (RR) calculations, were performed to compare the overall and subsection accuracy of the models., Results: ChatGPT 4.0 demonstrated superior accuracy, correctly answering 83.5% (66/79) of the questions, compared to Google Gemini's 68.4% (54/79), with a statistically significant difference (p=0.0255, RR=1.221). No statistically significant differences were found between the models within individual subsections, with p-values ranging from 0.136 to 1., Conclusion: ChatGPT 4.0 outperformed Google Gemini in overall accuracy for text-based pediatric radiology questions, highlighting its potential utility in medical education. However, the lack of significant differences within subsections and the exclusion of image-based questions underscore the need for further research with larger sample sizes and multimodal inputs to fully assess AI models' capabilities in radiology., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Abdul Sami et al.)

Purpose Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly employed across various fields, including medicine and dentistry. In the field of dental anesthesiology, LLM is expected to enhance the efficiency of information gathering, patient outcomes, and education. This study evaluates the performance of different LLMs in answering questions from the Japanese Dental Society of Anesthesiology Board Certification Examination (JDSABCE) to determine their utility in dental anesthesiology. Methods The study assessed three LLMs, ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI, San Francisco, California, United States), Gemini 1.0 (Google, Mountain View, California, United States), and Claude 3 Opus (Anthropic, San Francisco, California, United States), using multiple-choice questions from the 2020 to 2022 JDSABCE exams. Each LLM answered these questions three times. The study excluded questions involving figures or deemed inappropriate. The primary outcome was the accuracy rate of each LLM, with secondary analysis focusing on six subgroups: (1) basic physiology necessary for general anesthesia, (2) local anesthesia, (3) sedation and general anesthesia, (4) diseases and patient management methods that pose challenges in systemic management, (5) pain management, and (6) shock and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA with Dunnett's multiple comparisons, with a significance threshold of p<0.05. Results ChatGPT-4 achieved a correct answer rate of 51.2% (95% CI: 42.78-60.56, p=0.003) and Claude 3 Opus 47.4% (95% CI: 43.45-51.44, p<0.001), both significantly higher than Gemini 1.0, which had a rate of 30.3% (95% CI: 26.53-34.14). In subgroup analyses, ChatGPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus demonstrated superior performance in basic physiology, sedation and general anesthesia, and systemic management challenges compared to Gemini 1.0. Notably, ChatGPT-4 excelled in questions related to systemic management (62.5%) and Claude 3 Opus in pain management (61.53%). Conclusions ChatGPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus exhibit potential for use in dental anesthesiology, outperforming Gemini 1.0. However, their current accuracy rates are insufficient for reliable clinical use. These findings have significant implications for dental anesthesiology practice and education, including educational support, clinical decision support, and continuing education. To enhance LLM utility in dental anesthesiology, it is crucial to increase the availability of high-quality information online and refine prompt engineering to better guide LLM responses., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Fujimoto et al.)

Introduction:  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs), such as OpenAI's ChatGPT (San Francisco, CA), have the potential to improve medical care delivery and education, although important shortcomings in accuracy and image interpretation have been noted. The aim of this study was to assess the multimodal performance of a ChatGPT model customized with hand surgery-specific knowledge., Methods: A customized generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) was trained using peer-reviewed literature recommended by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH). Questions were taken from the ASSH 2022 Self-Assessment Examination (SAE). GPT-4 and the customized GPT were asked text-based multiple-choice questions. The customized GPT was also asked image-containing questions, both with and without access to the image(s) associated with each question., Results:  A total of 192 questions were included. The customized GPT responded to the 119 text-only questions with greater accuracy than GPT-4 (107 (89.9%) versus 91 (76.5%), P = 0.001). Human examinees answered 87.3% (IQR: 71.6-93.7%) of the same text-based questions correctly. Of the 73 questions with images, the customized GPT answered 55 (75.3%) questions correctly, which dropped to 51 (69.9%) when the images were withheld (P = 0.317). The human examinees answered 87.2% (IQR: 79.4-95.4%) of image-based questions correctly., Conclusion:  Our findings suggest significant improvements in ChatGPT's ability to answer text-based hand surgery questions with hand-specific training. ChatGPT is still limited in its ability to interpret images to answer questions related to hand conditions. These data show hand surgeons can create customized GPT models to provide tailored answers to specific questions, which may serve as the foundation for educational and clinical tools., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Flynn et al.)

Background Health literacy empowers patients to participate in their own healthcare. Personal health literacy is one's ability to find, understand, and use information/resources to make well-informed health decisions. Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a source for the acquisition of health-related information through large language model (LLM)-driven chatbots. Assessment of the readability and quality of health information produced by these chatbots has been the subject of numerous studies to date. This study seeks to assess the quality of patient education materials on cardiac catheterization produced by AI chatbots. Methodology We asked a set of 10 questions about cardiac catheterization to four chatbots: ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA), Microsoft Copilot (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA), Google Gemini (Google DeepMind, London, UK), and Meta AI (Meta, New York, NY). The questions and subsequent answers were utilized to make patient education materials on cardiac catheterization. The quality of these materials was assessed using two validated instruments for patient education materials: DISCERN and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Results The overall DISCERN scores were 4.5 for ChatGPT, 4.4 for Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini, and 3.8 for Meta AI. ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini tied for the highest reliability score at 4.6, while Meta AI had the lowest with 4.2. ChatGPT had the highest quality score at 4.4, while Meta AI had the lowest with 3.4. ChatGPT and Google Gemini had Understandability scores of 100%, while Meta AI had the lowest with 82%. ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini all had Actionability scores of 75%, while Meta AI had one of 50%. Conclusions ChatGPT produced the most reliable and highest quality materials, followed closely by Google Gemini. Meta AI produced the lowest quality materials. Given the easy accessibility that chatbots provide patients and the high-quality responses that we obtained, they could be a reliable source for patients to obtain information about cardiac catheterization., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Behers et al.)

Background With advancements in natural language processing, tools such as Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformers (ChatGPT) version 4.0 and Google Bard's Gemini Advanced are being increasingly evaluated for their potential in various medical applications. The objective of this study was to systematically assess the performance of these language learning models (LLMs) on both image and non-image-based questions within the specialized field of Ophthalmology. We used a review question bank for the Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP) used by ophthalmology residents nationally to prepare for the Ophthalmology Board Exam to assess the accuracy and performance of ChatGPT and Gemini Advanced. Methodology A total of 260 randomly generated multiple-choice questions from the OphthoQuestions question bank were run through ChatGPT and Gemini Advanced. A simulated 260-question OKAP examination was created at random from the bank. Question-specific data were analyzed, including overall percent correct, subspecialty accuracy, whether the question was "high yield," difficulty (1-4), and question type (e.g., image, text). To compare the performance of ChatGPT-4 and Gemini on the difficulty of questions, we utilized the standard deviation of user answer choices to determine question difficulty. In this study, a statistical analysis of Google Sheets was conducted using two-tailed t-tests with unequal variance to compare the performance of ChatGPT-4.0 and Google's Gemini Advanced across various question types, subspecialties, and difficulty levels. Results In total, 259 of the 260 questions were included in the study as one question used a video that any form of ChatGPT could not interpret as of May 1, 2024. For text-only questions, ChatGPT-4.0.0 correctly answered 57.14% (148/259, p < 0.018), and Gemini Advanced correctly answered 46.72% (121/259, p < 0.018). Both versions answered most questions without a prompt and would have received a below-average score on the OKAP. Moreover, there were 27 questions utilizing a secondary prompt in ChatGPT-4.0 compared to 67 questions in Gemini Advanced. ChatGPT-4.0 performed 68.99% on easier questions (<2 on a scale from 1-4) and 44.96% on harder questions (>2 on a scale from 1-4). On the other hand, Gemini Advanced performed 49.61% on easier questions (<2 on a scale from 1-4) and 44.19% on harder questions (>2 on a scale from 1-4). There was a statistically significant difference in accuracy between ChatGPT-4.0 and Gemini Advanced for easy (p < 0.0015) but not for hard (p < 0.55) questions. For image-only questions, ChatGPT-4.0 correctly answered 39.58% (19/48, p < 0.013), and Gemini Advanced correctly answered 33.33% (16/48, p < 0.022), resulting in a statistically insignificant difference in accuracy between ChatGPT-4.0 and Gemini Advanced (p < 0.530). A comparison against text-only and image-based questions demonstrated a statistically significant difference in accuracy for both ChatGPT-4.0 (p < 0.013) and Gemini Advanced (p < 0.022). Conclusions This study provides evidence that ChatGPT-4.0 performs better on the OKAP-style exams and is improved compared to Gemini Advanced within the context of ophthalmic multiple-choice questions. This may show an opportunity for increased worth for ChatGPT in ophthalmic medical education. While showing promise within medical education, caution should be used as a more detailed evaluation of reliability is needed., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Gill et al.)

Purpose: The utility of machine learning, specifically large language models (LLMs), in the medical field has gained considerable attention. However, there is a scarcity of studies that focus on the application of LLMs in generating custom subspecialty radiology impressions. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the performance of multiple LLMs in generating specialized, accurate, and clinically useful radiology impressions for degenerative cervical spine MRI reports., Materials and Methods: The study employed a comparative analysis of multiple LLMs, including OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA), Antrhopic's Claude 2 (Anthropic PBC, San Francisco, CA), Google's Bard (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA), and Meta's Llama 2 (Meta Platforms, Inc., Menlo Park, CA). This was performed during January-February 2024. These models were evaluated using a few-shot learning approach on a dataset consisting of 10 examples from 50 synthetically generated MRI reports. Performance metrics evaluated were diagnostic accuracy, stylistic accuracy, and redundancy., Results: While Claude 2 maintained consistent high performance across 40 cases, GPT-4 required midway re-training to improve its declining scores. Both Claude 2 and GPT-4 demonstrated the ability to generate structured impressions, but Claude 2's specialized summarization capabilities provided an edge in maintaining accuracy without continuous feedback. The other LLMs' performance was subpar., Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that LLMs can be a valuable tool in automating the generation of radiology impressions. Claude 2, in particular, exhibited promising results, indicating its potential for clinical implementation. However, the study also points to the necessity for further research, especially in optimizing model performance and evaluating real-world applicability., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Javan et al.)

Background: The growing interest in using ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) in the medical field highlights the need for in-depth knowledge of its potential and constraints, especially when it comes to anatomy education (AE). Because of its sophisticated natural language processing abilities, it can understand the nuances of anatomical concepts, provide advanced as well as contextually relevant information, and could be a helpful tool for medical students and educators. This study aimed to analyze the capabilities and limitations of ChatGPT and its best possible application in AE., Methodology: The study incorporated 34 questions that were inquired to ChatGPT after acquiring an online subscription to the 4th version. The questions were arbitrarily formulated after consensus among the researchers. The chatbot's replies were recorded and evaluated with reference to perfection, validity, and appropriateness., Results: ChatGPT was observed to be a useful interactive tool for medical students to comprehend the clinical importance and characteristics of anatomical structures. The chatbot clarified the anatomical basis of ischemic heart disease and adequately tabulated the differences between the arteries and veins. Even though ChatGPT-4 was able to produce images of different anatomical structures, it fell short of accurately displaying the necessary features. Further, the chatbot generated quizzes, including multiple-choice, true-false, fill-in-the-blank, matching, and case-based questions, formulated a relevant overview of the lecture, and also analyzed answers to anatomy questions with adequate reasoning., Conclusions: ChatGPT can be a useful educational resource for medical students with the potential to play a crucial role in AE if employed in a methodical way. It imparts significant aid to the anatomy teachers during the execution of the medical curriculum and enhances their jobs while it never takes the place of an educator., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Saluja et al.)

Background This study aims to evaluate the performance of OpenAI's GPT-4o in the Polish Final Dentistry Examination (LDEK) and compare it with human candidates' results. The LDEK is a standardized test essential for dental graduates in Poland to obtain their professional license. With artificial intelligence (AI) becoming increasingly integrated into medical and dental education, it is important to assess AI's capabilities in such high-stakes examinations. Materials and methods The study was conducted from August 1 to August 15, 2024, using the Spring 2023 LDEK exam. The exam comprised 200 multiple-choice questions, each with one correct answer among five options. Questions spanned various dental disciplines, including Conservative Dentistry with Endodontics, Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Surgery, Prosthetic Dentistry, Periodontology, Orthodontics, Emergency Medicine, Bioethics and Medical Law, Medical Certification, and Public Health. The exam organizers withdrew one question. GPT-4o was tested on these questions without access to the publicly available question bank. The AI model's responses were recorded, and each answer's confidence level was assessed. Correct answers were determined based on the official key provided by the Center for Medical Education (CEM) in Łódź, Poland. Statistical analyses, including Pearson's chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test, were performed to evaluate the accuracy and confidence of ChatGPT's answers across different dental fields. Results GPT-4o correctly answered 141 out of 199 valid questions (70.85%) and incorrectly answered 58 (29.15%). The AI performed better in fields like Conservative Dentistry with Endodontics (71.74%) and Prosthetic Dentistry (80%) but showed lower accuracy in Pediatric Dentistry (62.07%) and Orthodontics (52.63%). A statistically significant difference was observed between ChatGPT's performance on clinical case-based questions (36.36% accuracy) and other factual questions (72.87% accuracy), with a p-value of 0.025. Confidence levels also varied significantly between correct and incorrect answers, with a p-value of 0.0208. Conclusions GPT-4o's performance in the LDEK suggests it has potential as a supplementary educational tool in dentistry. However, the AI's limited clinical reasoning abilities, especially in complex scenarios, reveal a substantial gap between AI and human expertise. While ChatGPT demonstrates strong performance in factual recall, it cannot yet match the critical thinking and clinical judgment exhibited by human candidates., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Jaworski et al.)

Background There has been a significant increase in cervical fusion procedures, both anterior and posterior, across the United States. Despite this upward trend, limited research exists on adherence to evidence-based medicine (EBM) guidelines for cervical fusion, highlighting a gap between recommended practices and surgeon preferences. Additionally, patients are increasingly utilizing large language models (LLMs) to aid in decision-making. Methodology This observational study evaluated the capacity of four LLMs, namely, Bard, BingAI, ChatGPT-3.5, and ChatGPT-4, to adhere to EBM guidelines, specifically the 2023 North American Spine Society (NASS) cervical fusion guidelines. Ten clinical vignettes were created based on NASS recommendations to determine when fusion was indicated. This novel approach assessed LLM performance in a clinical decision-making context without requiring institutional review board approval, as no human subjects were involved. Results No LLM achieved complete concordance with NASS guidelines, though ChatGPT-4 and Bing Chat exhibited the highest adherence at 60%. Discrepancies were notably observed in scenarios involving head-drop syndrome and pseudoarthrosis, where all LLMs failed to align with NASS recommendations. Additionally, only 25% of LLMs agreed with NASS guidelines for fusion in cases of cervical radiculopathy and as an adjunct to facet cyst resection. Conclusions The study underscores the need for improved LLM training on clinical guidelines and emphasizes the importance of considering the nuances of individual patient cases. While LLMs hold promise for enhancing guideline adherence in cervical fusion decision-making, their current performance indicates a need for further refinement and integration with clinical expertise to ensure optimal patient care. This study contributes to understanding the role of AI in healthcare, advocating for a balanced approach that leverages technological advancements while acknowledging the complexities of surgical decision-making., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Sarikonda et al.)

Introduction The study assesses the readability of AI-generated brochures for common emergency medical conditions like heart attack, anaphylaxis, and syncope. Thus, the study aims to compare the AI-generated responses for patient information guides of common emergency medical conditions using ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Methodology Brochures for each condition were created by both AI tools. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Calculator, evaluating word count, sentence count and ease of understanding. Reliability was measured using the Modified DISCERN Score. The similarity between AI outputs was determined using Quillbot. Statistical analysis was performed with R (v4.3.2). Results ChatGPT and Gemini produced brochures with no statistically significant differences in word count (p= 0.2119), sentence count (p=0.1276), readability (p=0.3796), or reliability (p=0.7407). However, ChatGPT provided more detailed content with 32.4% more words (582.80 vs. 440.20) and 51.6% more sentences (67.00 vs. 44.20). In addition, Gemini's brochures were slightly easier to read with a higher ease score (50.62 vs. 41.88). Reliability varied by topic with ChatGPT scoring higher for Heart Attack (4 vs. 3) and Choking (3 vs. 2), while Google Gemini scored higher for Anaphylaxis (4 vs. 3) and Drowning (4 vs. 3), highlighting the need for topic-specific evaluation. Conclusions Although AI-generated brochures from ChatGPT and Gemini are comparable in readability and reliability for patient information on emergency medical conditions, this study highlights that there is no statistically significant difference in the responses generated by the two AI tools., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, S et al.)

GPT-4 Vision (GPT-4V) represents a significant advancement in multimodal artificial intelligence, enabling text generation from images without specialized training. This marks the transformation of ChatGPT as a large language model (LLM) into GPT-4's promised large multimodal model (LMM). As these AI models continue to advance, they may enhance radiology workflow and aid with decision support. This technical note explores potential GPT-4V applications in radiology and evaluates performance for sample tasks. GPT-4V capabilities were tested using images from the web, personal and institutional teaching files, and hand-drawn sketches. Prompts evaluated scientific figure analysis, radiologic image reporting, image comparison, handwriting interpretation, sketch-to-code, and artistic expression. In this limited demonstration of GPT-4V's capabilities, it showed promise in classifying images, counting entities, comparing images, and deciphering handwriting and sketches. However, it exhibited limitations in detecting some fractures, discerning a change in size of lesions, accurately interpreting complex diagrams, and consistently characterizing radiologic findings. Artistic expression responses were coherent. WhileGPT-4V may eventually assist with tasks related to radiology, current reliability gaps highlight the need for continued training and improvement before consideration for any medical use by the general public and ultimately clinical integration. Future iterations could enable a virtual assistant to discuss findings, improve reports, extract data from images, provide decision support based on guidelines, white papers, and appropriateness criteria. Human expertise remain essential for safe practice and partnerships between physicians, researchers, and technology leaders are necessary to safeguard against risks like bias and privacy concerns., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Javan et al.)

Introduction The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has revolutionized patient interactions and service delivery. AI's role extends from supporting clinical diagnostics and enhancing operational efficiencies to potentially improving informed consent processes in surgical settings. This study investigates the application of AI, particularly large language models like OpenAI's ChatGPT, in facilitating surgical consent, focusing on patient understanding, satisfaction, and trust. Methods We employed a mixed-methods approach involving 86 participants, including laypeople and medical staff, who engaged in a simulated AI-driven consent process for a tonsillectomy. Participants interacted with ChatGPT-4, which provided detailed procedure explanations, risks, and benefits. Post-interaction, participants completed a survey assessing their experience through quantitative and qualitative measures. Results Participants had a cautiously optimistic response to AI in the surgical consent process. Notably, 71% felt adequately informed, 86% found the information clear, and 71% felt they could make informed decisions. Overall, 71% were satisfied, 57% felt respected and confident, and 57% would recommend it, indicating areas needing refinement. However, concerns about data privacy and the lack of personal interaction were significant, with only 42% reassured about the security of their data. The standardization of information provided by AI was appreciated for potentially reducing human error, but the absence of empathetic human interaction was noted as a drawback. Discussion While AI shows promise in enhancing the consistency and comprehensiveness of information delivered during the consent process, significant challenges remain. These include addressing data privacy concerns and bridging the gap in personal interaction. The potential for AI to misinform due to system "hallucinations" or inherent biases also needs consideration. Future research should focus on refining AI interactions to support more nuanced and empathetic engagements, ensuring that AI supplements rather than replacing human elements in healthcare. Conclusion The integration of AI into surgical consent processes could standardize and potentially improve the delivery of information but must be balanced with efforts to maintain the critical human elements of care. Collaborative efforts between developers, clinicians, and ethicists are essential to optimize AI use, ensuring it complements the traditional consent process while enhancing patient satisfaction and trust., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Teasdale et al.)

Background The preparation of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings can be time-consuming. In addition to the clinical data being available digitally in subsystems, the preparation of more complex cases requires literature research. Several expert systems have been developed to support this process. However, the interaction with these systems has to be trained. Current development enables linguistic interaction with such artificial intelligence (AI) systems. To the best of our knowledge, these have not been tested as premedical screening tools for MDT. Methods This is a retrospective consecutive case series of 10 cervical cancer cases comparing the medical recommendations of the MDT and artificial intelligence (AI) on a low level (i.e., surgery, systemic treatment, and radiotherapy). Results The clinical cases ranged from primary diagnosis via suspected recurrence to palliative settings. The AI repeatedly stated that medical professionals need to be consulted before treatment decisions. The AI answers ranged from no agreement to overachievement by mentioning treatment options for preexisting risk factors (such as obesity). In standard cases, the AI answer matched well with the expert recommendations. In some cases, the AI answers were contrary to our treatment recommendation. Conclusion The interaction with current language AIs is temptingly easy, and the replies are very understandable. Despite the AI warning regarding medical recommendations in the majority of our cases, there was a good match with the MDT recommendations. However, in some cases, the medical evidence behind the answers was missing or in the worst case fictional. In our case series, the AI did not meet the requirements to support a clinical MDT meeting by prescreening the therapeutic options. However, it did exceed the expectations regarding the risk factors of the patients., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Ebner et al.)

Background This study aims to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT in the medical specialization exam (MSE) that medical graduates take when choosing their postgraduate specialization and to reveal how artificial intelligence-supported education can increase the quality and academic success of medical education. The research aims to explore the potential applications and advantages of artificial intelligence in medical education and examine ways in which this technology can contribute to student learning and exam preparation. Methodology A total of 240 MSE questions were posed to ChatGPT, 120 of which were basic medical sciences questions and 120 were clinical medical sciences questions. A total of 18,481 people participated in the exam. The performance of medical school graduates was compared with ChatGPT-3.5 in terms of answering these questions correctly. The average score for ChatGPT-3.5 was calculated by averaging the minimum and maximum scores. Calculations were done using the R.4.0.2 environment. Results The general average score of graduates was a minimum of 7.51 in basic sciences and a maximum of 81.46, while in clinical sciences, the average was a minimum of 12.51 and a maximum of 80.78. ChatGPT, on the other hand, had an average of at least 60.00 in basic sciences and a maximum of 72.00, with an average of at least 66.25 and a maximum of 77.00 in clinical sciences. The rate of correct answers in basic medical sciences for graduates was 43.03%, while for ChatGPT was 60.00%. In clinical medical sciences, the rate of correct answers for graduates was 53.29%, while for ChatGPT was 64.16%. ChatGPT performed best with a 91.66% correct answer rate in Obstetrics and Gynecology and an 86.36% correct answer rate in Medical Microbiology. The least successful area for ChatGPT was Anatomy, with a 28.00% correct answer rate, a subfield of basic medical sciences. Graduates outperformed ChatGPT in the Anatomy and Physiology subfields. Significant differences were found in all comparisons between ChatGPT and graduates. Conclusions This study shows that artificial intelligence models such as ChatGPT can provide significant advantages to graduates, as they score higher than medical school graduates. In terms of these benefits, recommended applications include interactive support, private lessons, learning material production, personalized learning plans, self-assessment, motivation boosting, and 24/7 access, among a variety of benefits. As a result, artificial intelligence-supported education can play an important role in improving the quality of medical education and increasing student success., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Afyon Kocatepe University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Board issued approval 2024/13. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Gencer et al.)

This systematic review aimed to assess the academic potential of ChatGPT (GPT-3.5, 4, and 4V) for Japanese national medical and healthcare licensing examinations, taking into account its strengths and limitations. Electronic databases such as PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and ICHUSHI (a Japanese medical article database) were systematically searched for relevant articles, particularly those published between January 1, 2022, and April 30, 2024. A formal narrative analysis was conducted by systematically arranging similarities and differences between individual research findings together. After rigorous screening, we reviewed 22 articles. Except for one article, all articles that evaluated GPT-4 showed that this tool could pass each exam containing text only. However, some studies also reported that, despite the possibility to pass, the results of GPT-4 were worse than those of the actual examinee. Moreover, the newest model GPT-4V insufficiently recognized images, thereby providing insufficient answers to questions that involved images and figures/tables. Therefore, their precision needs to be improved to obtain better results., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Ishida et al.)

Introduction: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, particularly through language models like ChatGPT and ChatSonic, has gained substantial attention. This article explores the utilization of these AI models to address patient queries related to hypertension, emphasizing their potential to enhance health literacy and disease understanding. The study aims to compare the quality and reliability of responses generated by ChatGPT and ChatSonic in addressing common patient queries about hypertension and evaluate these AI models using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and the Modified DISCERN scale., Methods: A virtual cross-sectional observational study was conducted over one month, starting in October 2023. Ten common patient queries regarding hypertension were presented to ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/) and ChatSonic (https://writesonic.com/chat), and the responses were recorded. Two internal medicine physicians assessed the responses using the GQS and the Modified DISCERN scale. Statistical analysis included Cohen's Kappa values for inter-rater agreement., Results: The study evaluated responses from ChatGPT and ChatSonic for 10 patient queries. Assessors observed variations in the quality and reliability assessments between the two AI models. Cohen's Kappa values indicated minimal agreement between the evaluators for both the GQS and Modified DISCERN scale., Conclusions: This study highlights the variations in the assessment of responses generated by ChatGPT and ChatSonic for hypertension-related queries. The findings highlight the need for ongoing monitoring and fact-checking of AI-generated responses., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Vinufrancis et al.)

Background: The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies like OpenAI's Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT), particularly ChatGPT, has shown promising applications in various fields, including medicine. This study evaluates ChatGPT's performance on the Polish Final Medical Examination (LEK), comparing its efficacy to that of human test-takers., Methods: The study analyzed ChatGPT's ability to answer 196 multiple-choice questions from the spring 2021 LEK. Questions were categorized into "clinical cases" and "other" general medical knowledge, and then divided according to medical fields. Two versions of ChatGPT (3.5 and 4.0) were tested. Statistical analyses, including Pearson's χ 2 test, and Mann-Whitney U test, were conducted to compare the AI's performance and confidence levels., Results: ChatGPT 3.5 correctly answered 50.51% of the questions, while ChatGPT 4.0 answered 77.55% correctly, surpassing the 56% passing threshold. Version 3.5 showed significantly higher confidence in correct answers, whereas version 4.0 maintained consistent confidence regardless of answer accuracy. No significant differences in performance were observed across different medical fields., Conclusions: ChatGPT 4.0 demonstrated the ability to pass the LEK, indicating substantial potential for AI in medical education and assessment. Future improvements in AI models, such as the anticipated ChatGPT 5.0, may enhance further performance, potentially equaling or surpassing human test-takers., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Jaworski et al.)

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is already a part of our reality. Many people started using ChatGPT in their daily life, replacing existing web browsers. The confidence people put in the ability of ChatGPT to provide accurate medical information is increasing. With that, the need for proper assessment tools for the safety and reliability of ChatGPT is also crucial., Objective: This study aimed to assess the accuracy, reliability, and quality of information provided by ChatGPT-4 on three specific orthodontic topics, namely, impacted canines, interceptive orthodontic treatment, and orthognathic surgery, as evaluated by five experienced orthodontists using a Likert scale ranking method., Materials and Methods: Using ChatGPT version 4, 20 most commonly asked questions were generated and answered on the following topics: impacted canines, interceptive treatment, and orthognathic surgery. The evaluation of the quality of the answers provided was done by five experienced orthodontists. Quality assessment was done using the Likert scale ranking method., Results: The quality answers generated by a conversational AI system (ChatGPT4) were evaluated by five experienced orthodontists for three topics: impacted canines, interceptive orthodontics, and orthognathic surgery. The evaluators rated each question-answer pair on a five-point scale from "very poor" to "very good." The results showed that the AI system produced generally good quality information for all topics, with no significant difference between them. The inter-rater agreement among the experts was low, indicating some variability in their judgments., Conclusion: This study demonstrates that ChatGPT4 can provide generally good information on impacted canines, interceptive treatment, and orthognathic surgery. However, answers provided should be handled with caution due to variability and lack of reliability and should not be considered a substitute for professional opinion., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Alkhamees et al.)

Objective To compare the quality of responses from three chatbots (ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and AskOE) across various orthopaedic surgery therapeutic treatment questions. Design We identified a series of treatment-related questions across a range of subspecialties in orthopaedic surgery. Questions were "identically" entered into one of three chatbots (ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and AskOE) and reviewed using a standardized rubric. Participants Orthopaedic surgery experts associated with McMaster University and the University of Toronto blindly reviewed all responses. Outcomes The primary outcomes were scores on a five-item assessment tool assessing clinical correctness, clinical completeness, safety, usefulness, and references. The secondary outcome was the reviewers' preferred response for each question. We performed a mixed effects logistic regression to identify factors associated with selecting a preferred chatbot. Results Across all questions and answers, AskOE was preferred by reviewers to a significantly greater extent than both ChatGPT (P<0.001) and Bing (P<0.001). AskOE also received significantly higher total evaluation scores than both ChatGPT (P<0.001) and Bing (P<0.001). Further regression analysis showed that clinical correctness, clinical completeness, usefulness, and references were significantly associated with a preference for AskOE. Across all responses, there were four considered as having major errors in response, with three occurring with ChatGPT and one occurring with AskOE. Conclusions Reviewers significantly preferred AskOE over ChatGPT and Bing Chat across a variety of variables in orthopaedic therapy questions. This technology has important implications in a healthcare setting as it provides access to trustworthy answers in orthopaedic surgery., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: VA, MP, MK, HC, and RM report no conflicts of interest related to this study. JS is an employee at OrthoEvidence. BP is a shareholder in OrthoEvidence and received an Institutional Education and Research Grant from Stryker Canada. MB is the Editor-in-Chief and Founder of OrthoEvidence. JS, BP, and MB were not involved in the processing or analysis of chatbot responses., (Copyright © 2024, Arora et al.)

Background: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a leading cause of disability worldwide, with a growing burden across all demographics. With advancements in technology, conversational artificial intelligence (AI) platforms such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) have become instrumental in disseminating health information. This study evaluated the effectiveness of ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 in delivering primary prevention information for common MSDs, emphasizing that the study is focused on prevention and not on diagnosis., Methods: This mixed-methods study employed the CLEAR tool to assess the quality of responses from ChatGPT versions in terms of completeness, lack of false information, evidence support, appropriateness, and relevance. Responses were evaluated independently by two expert raters in a blinded manner. Statistical analyses included Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and paired samples t-tests to compare the performance across versions., Results: ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 effectively provided primary prevention information, with overall performance ranging from satisfactory to excellent. Responses for low back pain, fractures, knee osteoarthritis, neck pain, and gout received excellent scores from both versions. Additionally, ChatGPT-4 was better than ChatGPT-3.5 in terms of completeness (p = 0.015), appropriateness (p = 0.007), and relevance (p = 0.036), and ChatGPT-4 performed better across most medical conditions (p = 0.010)., Conclusions: ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 are effective tools for disseminating primary prevention information for common MSDs, with ChatGPT-4 showing superior performance. This study underscores the potential of AI in enhancing public health strategies through reliable and accessible health communication. Advanced models such as ChatGPT-4 can effectively contribute to the primary prevention of MSDs by delivering high-quality health information, highlighting the role of AIs in addressing the global burden of chronic diseases. It is important to note that these AI tools are intended for preventive education purposes only and not for diagnostic use. Continuous improvements are necessary to fully harness the potential of AI in preventive medicine. Future studies should explore other AI platforms, languages, and secondary and tertiary prevention measures to maximize the utility of AIs in global health contexts., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Yilmaz Muluk et al.)

Objectives Large language models (LLMs), for example, ChatGPT, have performed exceptionally well in various fields. Of note, their success in answering postgraduate medical examination questions has been previously reported, indicating their possible utility in surgical education and training. This study evaluated the performance of four different LLMs on the American Board of Thoracic Surgery's (ABTS) Self-Education and Self-Assessment in Thoracic Surgery (SESATS) XIII question bank to investigate the potential applications of these LLMs in the education and training of future surgeons. Methods The dataset in this study comprised 400 best-of-four questions from the SESATS XIII exam. This included 220 adult cardiac surgery questions, 140 general thoracic surgery questions, 20 congenital cardiac surgery questions, and 20 cardiothoracic critical care questions. The GPT-3.5 (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) and GPT-4 (OpenAI) models were evaluated, as well as Med-PaLM 2 (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA) and Claude 2 (Anthropic Inc., San Francisco, CA), and their respective performances were compared. The subspecialties included were adult cardiac, general thoracic, congenital cardiac, and critical care. Questions requiring visual information, such as clinical images or radiology, were excluded. Results GPT-4 demonstrated a significant improvement over GPT-3.5 overall (87.0% vs. 51.8% of questions answered correctly, p < 0.0001). GPT-4 also exhibited consistently improved performance across all subspecialties, with accuracy rates ranging from 70.0% to 90.0%, compared to 35.0% to 60.0% for GPT-3.5. When using the GPT-4 model, ChatGPT performed significantly better on the adult cardiac and general thoracic subspecialties (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Large language models, such as ChatGPT with the GPT-4 model, demonstrate impressive skill in understanding complex cardiothoracic surgical clinical information, achieving an overall accuracy rate of nearly 90.0% on the SESATS question bank. Our study shows significant improvement between successive GPT iterations. As LLM technology continues to evolve, its potential use in surgical education, training, and continuous medical education is anticipated to enhance patient outcomes and safety in the future., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Khalpey et al.)

Objective  To evaluate and compare the performance of Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), GPT-4, and Google Bard on United States otolaryngology board-style questions to scale their ability to act as an adjunctive study tool and resource for students and doctors. Methods A 1077 text question and 60 image-based questions from the otolaryngology board exam preparation tool BoardVitals were inputted into ChatGPT, GPT-4, and Google Bard. The questions were scaled true or false, depending on whether the artificial intelligence (AI) modality provided the correct response. Data analysis was performed in R Studio. Results  GPT-4 scored the highest at 78.7% compared to ChatGPT and Bard at 55.3% and 61.7% (p<0.001), respectively. In terms of question difficulty, all three AI models performed best on easy questions (ChatGPT: 69.7%, GPT-4: 92.5%, and Bard: 76.4%) and worst on hard questions (ChatGPT: 42.3%, GPT-4: 61.3%, and Bard: 45.6%). Across all difficulty levels, GPT-4 did better than Bard and ChatGPT (p<0.0001). GPT-4 outperformed ChatGPT and Bard in all subspecialty sections, with significantly higher scores (p<0.05) on all sections except allergy (p>0.05). On image-based questions, GPT-4 performed better than Bard (56.7% vs 46.4%, p=0.368) and had better overall image interpretation capabilities. Conclusion This study showed that the GPT-4 model performed better than both ChatGPT and Bard on the United States otolaryngology board practice questions. Although the GPT-4 results were promising, AI should still be used with caution when being implemented in medical education or patient care settings., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Terwilliger et al.)

Introduction: ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) is a novel artificial intelligence (AI) application that is used by millions of people, and the numbers are growing by the day. Because it has the potential to be a source of patient information, the study aimed to evaluate the ability of ChatGPT to answer frequently asked questions (FAQs) about asthma with consistent reliability, acceptability, and easy readability., Methods: We collected 30 FAQs about asthma from the Global Initiative for Asthma website. ChatGPT was asked each question twice, by two different users, to assess for consistency. The responses were evaluated by five board-certified internal medicine physicians for reliability and acceptability. The consistency of responses was determined by the differences in evaluation between the two answers to the same question. The readability of all responses was measured using the Flesch Reading Ease Scale (FRES), the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG)., Results: Sixty responses were collected for evaluation. Fifty-six (93.33%) of the responses were of good reliability. The average rating of the responses was 3.65 out of 4 total points. 78.3% (n=47) of the responses were found acceptable by the evaluators to be the only answer for an asthmatic patient. Only two (6.67%) of the 30 questions had inconsistent answers. The average readability of all responses was determined to be 33.50±14.37 on the FRES, 12.79±2.89 on the FKGL, and 13.47±2.38 on the SMOG., Conclusion: Compared to online websites, we found that ChatGPT can be a reliable and acceptable source of information for asthma patients in terms of information quality. However, all responses were of difficult readability, and none followed the recommended readability levels. Therefore, the readability of this AI application requires improvement to be more suitable for patients., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Alabdulmohsen et al.)

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a burgeoning new field that has increased in popularity over the past couple of years, coinciding with the public release of large language model (LLM)-driven chatbots. These chatbots, such as ChatGPT, can be engaged directly in conversation, allowing users to ask them questions or issue other commands. Since LLMs are trained on large amounts of text data, they can also answer questions reliably and factually, an ability that has allowed them to serve as a source for medical inquiries. This study seeks to assess the readability of patient education materials on cardiac catheterization across four of the most common chatbots: ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and Meta AI., Methodology: A set of 10 questions regarding cardiac catheterization was developed using website-based patient education materials on the topic. We then asked these questions in consecutive order to four of the most common chatbots: ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and Meta AI. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) was used to assess the readability score. Readability grade levels were assessed using six tools: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Automated Readability Index (ARI), and FORCAST Grade Level., Results: The mean FRES across all four chatbots was 40.2, while overall mean grade levels for the four chatbots were 11.2, 13.7, 13.7, 13.3, 11.2, and 11.6 across the FKGL, GFI, CLI, SMOG, ARI, and FORCAST indices, respectively. Mean reading grade levels across the six tools were 14.8 for ChatGPT, 12.3 for Microsoft Copilot, 13.1 for Google Gemini, and 9.6 for Meta AI. Further, FRES values for the four chatbots were 31, 35.8, 36.4, and 57.7, respectively., Conclusions: This study shows that AI chatbots are capable of providing answers to medical questions regarding cardiac catheterization. However, the responses across the four chatbots had overall mean reading grade levels at the 11 th -13 th -grade level, depending on the tool used. This means that the materials were at the high school and even college reading level, which far exceeds the recommended sixth-grade level for patient education materials. Further, there is significant variability in the readability levels provided by different chatbots as, across all six grade-level assessments, Meta AI had the lowest scores and ChatGPT generally had the highest., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Behers et al.)

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent healthcare concern that is frequently responsive to conservative treatment. However, it can also stem from severe conditions, marked by 'red flags' (RF) such as malignancy, cauda equina syndrome, fractures, infections, spondyloarthropathies, and aneurysm rupture, which physicians should be vigilant about. Given the increasing reliance on online health information, this study assessed ChatGPT-3.5's (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) and GoogleBard's (Google, Mountain View, CA, USA) accuracy in responding to RF-related LBP questions and their capacity to discriminate the severity of the condition., Methods: We created 70 questions on RF-related symptoms and diseases following the LBP guidelines. Among them, 58 had a single symptom (SS), and 12 had multiple symptoms (MS) of LBP. Questions were posed to ChatGPT and GoogleBard, and responses were assessed by two authors for accuracy, completeness, and relevance (ACR) using a 5-point rubric criteria., Results: Cohen's kappa values (0.60-0.81) indicated significant agreement among the authors. The average scores for responses ranged from 3.47 to 3.85 for ChatGPT-3.5 and from 3.36 to 3.76 for GoogleBard for 58 SS questions, and from 4.04 to 4.29 for ChatGPT-3.5 and from 3.50 to 3.71 for GoogleBard for 12 MS questions. The ratings for these responses ranged from 'good' to 'excellent'. Most SS responses effectively conveyed the severity of the situation (93.1% for ChatGPT-3.5, 94.8% for GoogleBard), and all MS responses did so. No statistically significant differences were found between ChatGPT-3.5 and GoogleBard scores (p>0.05)., Conclusions: In an era characterized by widespread online health information seeking, artificial intelligence (AI) systems play a vital role in delivering precise medical information. These technologies may hold promise in the field of health information if they continue to improve., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Yilmaz Muluk et al.)

Background The use of artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool for patient care has continued to rapidly expand. The technology has proven its utility in various applications across several specialties in a variety of applications. However, its practicality in orthopedics remains widely unknown. This study seeks to determine if the open-access software Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) can be a reliable source of data for patients. Questions/purposes This study aims to determine: (1) Is the open-access AI software ChatGPT capable of accurately answering commonly posed patient questions? (2) Will there be a significant difference in agreement among the study experts in the answers generated by ChatGPT? Methods A standard list of questions for six different procedures across six subspecialties is posed to ChatGPT. The procedures chosen were anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, microdiscectomy, total hip arthroplasty (THA), rotator cuff repair, carpal tunnel release, and ankle fracture open reduction and internal fixation. The generated answers are then compared to expert opinion using a Likert scale based on the agreement of the aforementioned experts. Results On a three-point Likert scale with 1 being disagree and 3 being agree, the mean score across all subspecialties is 2.43, indicating at least partial agreement with expert opinion. There was no significant difference in the Likert scale mean across the six subspecialties surveyed (p = 0.177). Conclusions This study shows promise in using ChatGPT as an aid in answering patient questions regarding their surgical procedures. This opens doors for the use of the software by patients for understanding and increased shared decision-making with their surgeons. However, studies with larger participation groups are necessary to ensure accuracy on a larger and broader scale as well as studies involving specific application of AI within surgeon's practice., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Smith et al.)

Background Hand surgeons have been charged with the use of diverse modalities to enhance the consenting process following the Montgomery ruling. Artificial Intelligence language models have been suggested as patient education tools that may aid consent. Methods We compared the quality and readability of the Every Informed Decision Online (EIDO) patient information leaflet for carpal tunnel release with the artificial intelligence language model Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT). Results The quality of information by ChatGPT was significantly higher using the DISCERN score, 71/80 for ChatGPT compared to 62/80 for EIDO (p=0.014). DISCERN interrater observer reliability was high (0.65) using the kappa statistic. Flesch-Kincaid readability scoring was 12.3 for ChatGPT and 7.5 for EIDO, suggesting a more complex reading age for the ChatGPT information. Conclusion The artificial intelligence language model ChatGPT produces high-quality information at the expense of readability when compared to EIDO information leaflets for carpal tunnel release consent., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Brock et al.)

Introduction With both suspicion and excitement, artificial intelligence tools are being integrated into nearly every aspect of human existence, including medical sciences and medical education. The newest large language model (LLM) in the class of autoregressive language models is ChatGPT. While ChatGPT's potential to revolutionize clinical practice and medical education is under investigation, further research is necessary to understand its strengths and limitations in this field comprehensively. Methods Two hundred National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate 2023 questions were gathered from various public education websites and individually entered into Microsoft Bing (GPT-4 Version 2.2.1). Microsoft Bing Chatbot is currently the only platform incorporating all of GPT-4's multimodal features, including image recognition. The results were subsequently analyzed. Results Out of 200 questions, ChatGPT-4 answered 129 correctly. The most tested specialties were medicine (15%), obstetrics and gynecology (15%), general surgery (14%), and pathology (10%), respectively. Conclusion This study sheds light on how well the GPT-4 performs in addressing the NEET-PG entrance test. ChatGPT has potential as an adjunctive instrument within medical education and clinical settings. Its capacity to react intelligently and accurately in complicated clinical settings demonstrates its versatility., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Paul et al.)

Background: Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot capable of delivering human-like responses to a seemingly infinite number of inquiries. For the technology to perform certain healthcare-related tasks or act as a study aid, the technology should have up-to-date knowledge and the ability to reason through medical information. The purpose of this study was to assess the orthopedic knowledge and reasoning ability of ChatGPT by querying it with orthopedic board-style questions., Methodology: We queried ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) with a total of 472 questions from the Orthobullets dataset ( n = 239), the 2022 Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) ( n = 124), and the 2021 OITE ( n = 109). The importance, difficulty, and category were recorded for questions from the Orthobullets question bank. Responses were assessed for answer choice correctness if the explanation given matched that of the dataset, answer integrity, and reason for incorrectness., Results: ChatGPT correctly answered 55.9% (264/472) of questions and, of those answered correctly, gave an explanation that matched that of the dataset for 92.8% (245/264) of the questions. The chatbot used information internal to the question in all responses (100%) and used information external to the question (98.3%) as well as logical reasoning (96.4%) in most responses. There was no significant difference in the proportion of questions answered correctly between the datasets ( P = 0.62). There was no significant difference in the proportion of questions answered correctly by question category ( P = 0.67), importance ( P = 0.95), or difficulty ( P = 0.87) within the Orthobullets dataset questions. ChatGPT mostly got questions incorrect due to information error (i.e., failure to identify the information required to answer the question) (81.7% of incorrect responses)., Conclusions: ChatGPT performs below a threshold likely to pass the American Board of Orthopedic Surgery (ABOS) Part I written exam. The chatbot's performance on the 2022 and 2021 OITEs was between the average performance of an intern and to second-year resident. A major limitation of the current model is the failure to identify the information required to correctly answer the questions., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Sparks et al.)

Purpose: To evaluate the efficiency of three artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots (ChatGPT-3.5 (OpenAI, San Francisco, California, United States), Bing Copilot (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States), Google Gemini (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States)) in assisting the ophthalmologist in the diagnostic approach and management of challenging ophthalmic cases and compare their performance with that of a practicing human ophthalmic specialist. The secondary aim was to assess the short- and medium-term consistency of ChatGPT's responses., Methods: Eleven ophthalmic case scenarios of variable complexity were presented to the AI chatbots and to an ophthalmic specialist in a stepwise fashion. Advice regarding the initial differential diagnosis, the final diagnosis, further investigation, and management was asked for. One month later, the same process was repeated twice on the same day for ChatGPT only., Results: The individual diagnostic performance of all three AI chatbots was inferior to that of the ophthalmic specialist; however, they provided useful complementary input in the diagnostic algorithm. This was especially true for ChatGPT and Bing Copilot. ChatGPT exhibited reasonable short- and medium-term consistency, with the mean Jaccard similarity coefficient of responses varying between 0.58 and 0.76., Conclusion: AI chatbots may act as useful assisting tools in the diagnosis and management of challenging ophthalmic cases; however, their responses should be scrutinized for potential inaccuracies, and by no means can they replace consultation with an ophthalmic specialist., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Mandalos et al.)

Background ChatGPT is a language model that has gained widespread popularity for its fine-tuned conversational abilities. However, a known drawback to the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot is its tendency to confidently present users with inaccurate information. We evaluated the quality of ChatGPT responses to questions pertaining to atrial fibrillation for patient education. Our analysis included the accuracy and estimated grade level of answers and whether references were provided for the answers. Methodology ChatGPT was prompted four times and 16 frequently asked questions on atrial fibrillation from the American Heart Association were asked. Prompts included Form 1 (no prompt), Form 2 (patient-friendly prompt), Form 3 (physician-level prompt), and Form 4 (prompting for statistics/references). Responses were scored as incorrect, partially correct, or correct with references (perfect). Flesch-Kincaid grade-level unique words and response lengths were recorded for answers. Proportions of the responses at differing scores were compared using the chi-square analysis. The relationship between form and grade level was assessed using the analysis of variance. Results Across all forms, scoring frequencies were one (1.6%) incorrect, five (7.8%) partially correct, 55 (85.9%) correct, and three (4.7%) perfect. Proportions of responses that were at least correct did not differ by form (p = 0.350), but perfect responses did (p = 0.001). Form 2 answers had a lower mean grade level (12.80 ± 3.38) than Forms 1 (14.23 ± 2.34), 3 (16.73 ± 2.65), and 4 (14.85 ± 2.76) (p < 0.05). Across all forms, references were provided in only three (4.7%) answers. Notably, when additionally prompted for sources or references, ChatGPT still only provided sources on three responses out of 16 (18.8%). Conclusions ChatGPT holds significant potential for enhancing patient education through accurate, adaptive responses. Its ability to alter response complexity based on user input, combined with high accuracy rates, supports its use as an informational resource in healthcare settings. Future advancements and continuous monitoring of AI capabilities will be crucial in maximizing the benefits while mitigating the risks associated with AI-driven patient education., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Lee et al.)

Background There has been an explosion of commentary and discussion about the ethics and utility of using artificial intelligence in medicine, and its practical use in medical education is still being debated. Through qualitative research methods, this study aims to highlight the advantages and pitfalls of using ChatGPT in the development of clinical reasoning cases for medical student education. Methods Five highly experienced faculty in medical education were provided instructions to create unique clinical reasoning cases for three different chief concerns using ChatGPT 3.0. Faculty were then asked to reflect on and review the created cases. Finally, a focus group was conducted to further analyze and describe their experiences with the new technology. Results Overall, faculty found the use of ChatGPT in the development of clinical reasoning cases easy to use but difficult to get to certain objectives and largely incapable of being creative enough to create complexity for student use without heavy editing. The created cases did provide a helpful starting point and were extremely efficient; however, faculty did experience some medical inaccuracies and fact fabrication. Conclusion There is value to using ChatGPT to develop curricular content, especially for clinical reasoning cases, but it needs to be comprehensively reviewed and verified. To efficiently and effectively utilize the tool, educators will need to develop a framework that can be easily translatable into simple prompts that ChatGPT can understand. Future work will need to strongly consider the risks of recirculating biases and misinformation., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Wong et al.)

Introduction: Health literacy is a critical determinant of a patient's overall health status, and studies have demonstrated a consistent link between poor health literacy and negative health outcomes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) advise that patient educational materials (PEMs) should be written at an eighth-grade reading level or lower, matching the average reading level of adult Americans. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to edit PEMs from orthopaedic institutions to meet the CDC and NIH guidelines., Methods: PEMs about lateral epicondylitis (LE) from the top 25 ranked orthopaedic institutions from the 2022 U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals Specialty Ranking were gathered. ChatGPT Plus (version 4.0) was then instructed to rewrite PEMs on LE from these institutions to comply with CDC and NIH-recommended guidelines. Readability scores were calculated for the original and rewritten PEMs, and paired t-tests were used to determine statistical significance., Results: Analysis of the original and edited PEMs about LE revealed significant reductions in reading grade level and word count of 3.70 ± 1.84 (p<0.001) and 346.72 ± 364.63 (p<0.001), respectively., Conclusion: Our study demonstrated generative AI's ability to rewrite PEM about LE at a reading comprehension level that conforms to the CDC and NIH guidelines. Hospital administrators and orthopaedic surgeons should consider the findings of this study and the potential utility of artificial intelligence when crafting PEMs of their own., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Miskiewicz et al.)

Introduction Hyperlipidemia is prevalent worldwide and affects a significant number of US adults. It significantly contributes to ischemic heart disease and millions of deaths annually. With the increasing use of the internet for health information, tools like ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) have gained traction. ChatGPT version 4.0, launched in March 2023, offers enhanced features over its predecessor but requires a monthly fee. This study compares the accuracy, comprehensibility, and response length of the free and paid versions of ChatGPT for patient education on hyperlipidemia. Materials and methods ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 were prompted in three different ways and 25 questions from the Cleveland Clinic's frequently asked questions (FAQs) on hyperlipidemia. Prompts included no prompting (Form 1), patient-friendly prompting (Form 2), and physician-level prompting (Form 3). Responses were categorized as incorrect, partially correct, or correct. Additionally, the grade level and word count from each response were recorded for analysis. Results Overall, scoring frequencies for ChatGPT version 3.5 were: five (6.67%) incorrect, 18 partially correct (24%), and 52 (69.33%) correct. Scoring frequencies for ChatGPT version 4.0 were: one (1.33%) incorrect, 18 (24.00%) partially correct, and 56 (74.67%) correct. Correct answers did not significantly differ between ChatGPT version 3.5 and ChatGPT version 4.0 (p = 0.586). ChatGPT version 3.5 had a significantly higher grade reading level than version 4.0 (p = 0.0002). ChatGPT version 3.5 had a significantly higher word count than version 4.0 (p = 0.0073). Discussion There was no significant difference in accuracy between the free and paid versions of hyperlipidemia FAQs. Both versions provided accurate but sometimes partially complete responses. Version 4.0 offered more concise and readable information, aligning with the readability of most online medical resources despite exceeding the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) recommended eighth-grade reading level. The paid version demonstrated superior adaptability in tailoring responses based on the input. Conclusion Both versions of ChatGPT provide reliable medical information, with the paid version offering more adaptable and readable responses. Healthcare providers can recommend ChatGPT as a source of patient education, regardless of the version used. Future research should explore diverse question formulations and ChatGPT's handling of incorrect information., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Lee et al.)

Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) is a severe and potentially fatal adverse drug reaction. This case report presents a 19-year-old male with pulmonary tuberculosis undergoing anti-tubercular therapy who developed TEN. The patient had multiple comorbidities including type 1 diabetes mellitus and multisystem atrophy. ChatGPT was utilized alongside conventional methods to assess causality. While conventional scoring systems estimated mortality at 58.3% (SCORTEN) and 12.3% (ABCD-10), ChatGPT yielded divergent scores. Causality assessment using WHO-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) and Naranjo's scale indicated rifampicin and isoniazid as probable causative agents. However, ChatGPT provided ambiguous results. The study underscores the potential of AI in pharmacovigilance but emphasizes caution due to discrepancies observed. Collaborative utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) with clinical judgment is advocated to enhance diagnostic accuracy and treatment decisions in adverse drug reactions. This case highlights the importance of integrating AI into drug safety systems while acknowledging its limitations to ensure optimal patient care., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Pandya et al.)

Introduction:  The utility of ChatGPT has recently caused consternation in the medical world. While it has been utilized to write manuscripts, only a few studies have evaluated the quality of manuscripts generated by AI (artificial intelligence)., Objective:  We evaluate the ability of ChatGPT to write a case report when provided with a framework. We also provide practical considerations for manuscript writing using AI., Methods: We compared a manuscript written by a blinded human author (10 years of medical experience) with a manuscript written by ChatGPT on a rare presentation of a common disease. We used multiple iterations of the manuscript generation request to derive the best ChatGPT output. Participants, outcomes, and measures: 22 human reviewers compared the manuscripts using parameters that characterize human writing and relevant standard manuscript assessment criteria, viz., scholarly impact quotient (SIQ). We also compared the manuscripts using the "average perplexity score" (APS), "burstiness score" (BS), and "highest perplexity of a sentence" (GPTZero parameters to detect AI-generated content)., Results: The human manuscript had a significantly higher quality of presentation and nuanced writing (p<0.05). Both manuscripts had a logical flow. 12/22 reviewers were able to identify the AI-generated manuscript (p<0.05), but 4/22 reviewers wrongly identified the human-written manuscript as AI-generated. GPTZero software erroneously identified four sentences of the human-written manuscript to be AI-generated., Conclusion:  Though AI showed an ability to highlight the novelty of the case report and project a logical flow comparable to the human manuscript, it could not outperform the human writer on all parameters. The human manuscript showed a better quality of presentation and more nuanced writing. The practical considerations we provide for AI-assisted medical writing will help to better utilize AI in manuscript writing., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Pinto et al.)

Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, particularly through AI-based language models like ChatGPT, offers a promising avenue for enhancing patient education and healthcare delivery. This study aims to evaluate the quality of medical information provided by Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) regarding common orthopedic and trauma surgical procedures, assess its limitations, and explore its potential as a supplementary source for patient education., Methods: Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo version of ChatGPT, simulated patient information was generated for 20 orthopedic and trauma surgical procedures. The study utilized standardized information forms as a reference for evaluating ChatGPT's responses. The accuracy and quality of the provided information were assessed using a modified DISCERN instrument, and a global medical assessment was conducted to categorize the information's usefulness and reliability., Results: ChatGPT mentioned an average of 47% of relevant keywords across procedures, with a variance in the mention rate between 30.5% and 68.6%. The average modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) score was 2.4 out of 5, indicating a moderate to low quality of information. None of the ChatGPT-generated fact sheets were rated as "very useful," with 45% deemed "somewhat useful," 35% "not useful," and 20% classified as "dangerous." A positive correlation was found between higher mDISCERN scores and better physician ratings, suggesting that information quality directly impacts perceived utility., Conclusion: While AI-based language models like ChatGPT hold significant promise for medical education and patient care, the current quality of information provided in the field of orthopedics and trauma surgery is suboptimal. Further development and refinement of AI sources and algorithms are necessary to improve the accuracy and reliability of medical information. This study underscores the need for ongoing research and development in AI applications in healthcare, emphasizing the critical role of accurate, high-quality information in patient education and informed consent processes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Kasapovic et al.)

Introduction: In the present era, individuals have the ability to improve their study organization, attendance in classes, and use of mnemonics via the utilization of contemporary technology. The use of the open AI-based application Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) in dentistry is a developing domain, and the integration of this technology into dental education relies on the accessibility and efficacy of AI technology, as well as the readiness of institutions to adopt it. Furthermore, it is crucial to contemplate the possible ethical ramifications associated with the utilization of AI in the field of dentistry, as well as the need for dental practitioners to have adequate training in its use. In order to include the Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer in the dentistry curriculum, a thorough evaluation and consultation with field specialists would be necessary. This study aimed to determine whether the Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer is more effective than conventional teaching methods in teaching undergraduate dental students., Method: Comparative research was conducted at Shri. Yashwantrao Chavan Memorial Medical and Rural Development Foundation's Dental College, Ahmednagar. Computer-generated random numbers were used to divide 100 students into two groups. Each group consists of 50 students. A didactic lecture was given using PowerPoint (Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corp.) for both groups. Group A was given textbooks to read and Group B used the Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer. An online questionnaire using Google Forms (Menlo Park, CA: Google LLC), which had been pre-validated, was sent via email to both groups. The pre- and post-test scores are then compared using the t-test., Result: The calculated t-value is 12.263 (at 81 degrees of freedom) and the p-value is 0.000, which is less than 0.01. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, and it is concluded that conventional method scores and ChatGPT method scores for the post-test have a high significant difference. Also, it is observed that the mean scores for the conventional method are higher than the mean scores for the ChatGPT method for the post-test., Conclusion: It has been concluded from the study that traditional teaching methods are more effective for learning than understanding ChatGPT., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Bhatia et al.)

Background Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot, have been instrumental in various domains, including healthcare, where they enhance health literacy and aid in patient decision-making. Given the complexities involved in breast imaging procedures, accurate and comprehensible information is vital for patient engagement and compliance. This study aims to evaluate the readability and accuracy of the information provided by three prominent LLMs, ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot, in response to frequently asked questions in breast imaging, assessing their potential to improve patient understanding and facilitate healthcare communication. Methodology We collected the most common questions on breast imaging from clinical practice and posed them to LLMs. We then evaluated the responses in terms of readability and accuracy. Responses from LLMs were analyzed for readability using the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tests and for accuracy through a radiologist-developed Likert-type scale. Results The study found significant variations among LLMs. Gemini and Microsoft Copilot scored higher on readability scales (p < 0.001), indicating their responses were easier to understand. In contrast, ChatGPT-4 demonstrated greater accuracy in its responses (p < 0.001). Conclusions While LLMs such as ChatGPT-4 show promise in providing accurate responses, readability issues may limit their utility in patient education. Conversely, Gemini and Microsoft Copilot, despite being less accurate, are more accessible to a broader patient audience. Ongoing adjustments and evaluations of these models are essential to ensure they meet the diverse needs of patients, emphasizing the need for continuous improvement and oversight in the deployment of artificial intelligence technologies in healthcare., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Tepe et al.)

Background Google Gemini (Google, Mountain View, CA) represents the latest advances in the realm of artificial intelligence (AI) and has garnered attention due to its capabilities similar to the increasingly popular ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA). Accurate dissemination of information on common conditions such as hypertension is critical for patient comprehension and management. Despite the ubiquity of AI, comparisons between ChatGPT and Gemini remain unexplored. Methods ChatGPT and Gemini were asked 52 questions derived from the American College of Cardiology's (ACC) frequently asked questions on hypertension, following a specified prompt. Prompts included: no prompting (Form 1), patient-friendly prompting (Form 2), physician-level prompting (Form 3), and prompting for statistics/references (Form 4). Responses were scored as incorrect, partially correct, or correct. Flesch-Kincaid (FK) grade level and word count were recorded. Results Across all forms, scoring frequencies were as follows: 23 (5.5%) incorrect, 162 (38.9%) partially correct, and 231 (55.5%) correct. ChatGPT showed higher rates of partially correct answers than Gemini (p = 0.0346). Physician-level prompts resulted in a higher word count across both platforms (p < 0.001). ChatGPT showed a higher FK grade level (p = 0.033) in physician-friendly prompting. Gemini exhibited a significantly higher mean word count (p < 0.001); however, ChatGPT had a higher FK grade level across all forms (p > 0.001). Conclusion To our knowledge, this study is the first to compare cardiology-related responses from ChatGPT and Gemini, two of the most popular AI chatbots. The grade level for most responses was collegiate level, which was above average for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommendations, but on par with most online medical information. Both chatbots responded with a high degree of accuracy, with inaccuracies being rare. Therefore, it is reasonable that cardiologists suggest either chatbot as a source of supplementary education., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Lee et al.)

Introduction: ChatGPT has been tested in many disciplines, but only a few have involved hearing diagnosis and none to physiology or audiology more generally. The consistency of the chatbot's responses to the same question posed multiple times has not been well investigated either. This study aimed to assess the accuracy and repeatability of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 on test questions concerning objective measures of hearing. Of particular interest was the short-term repeatability of responses which was here tested on four separate days extended over one week., Methods: We used 30 single-answer, multiple-choice exam questions from a one-year course on objective methods of testing hearing. The questions were posed five times to both ChatGPT 3.5 (the free version) and ChatGPT 4 (the paid version) on each of four days (two days one week and two days the following week). The accuracy of the responses was evaluated in terms of a response key. To evaluate the repeatability of the responses over time, percent agreement and Cohen's Kappa were calculated.  Results: The overall accuracy of ChatGPT 3.5 was 48-49%, while that of ChatGPT 4 was 65-69%. ChatGPT 3.5 consistently failed to pass the threshold of 50% correct responses. Within a single day, the percent agreement was 76-79% for ChatGPT 3.5 and 87-88% for ChatGPT 4 (Cohen's Kappa 0.67-0.71 and 0.81-0.84 respectively). The percent agreement between responses from different days was 75-79% for ChatGPT 3.5 and 85-88% for ChatGPT 4 (Cohen's Kappa 0.65-0.69 and 0.80-0.85 respectively)., Conclusion: ChatGPT 4 outperforms ChatGPT 3.5 both in accuracy and higher repeatability over time. However, the great variability of the responses casts doubt on possible professional applications of both versions., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Kochanek et al.)

Background Musculoskeletal disorders are a significant global health issue, necessitating advanced management strategies such as intra-articular and extra-articular injections to alleviate pain, inflammation, and mobility challenges. As the adoption of these interventions by physicians grows, the importance of robust safety protocols becomes paramount. This study evaluates the effectiveness of conversational artificial intelligence (AI), particularly versions 3.5 and 4 of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), in creating patient safety checklists for managing musculoskeletal injections to enhance the preparation of safety documentation. Methodology A quantitative analysis was conducted to evaluate AI-generated safety checklists against a preformed checklist adapted from reputable medical sources. Adherence of the generated checklists to the preformed checklist was calculated and classified. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess the performance differences between ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4. Results ChatGPT-4 showed superior adherence to the preformed checklist compared to ChatGPT-3.5, with both versions classified as very good in safety protocol creation. Although no significant differences were present in the sign-in and sign-out parts of the checklists of both versions, ChatGPT-4 had significantly higher scores in the procedure planning part (p = 0.007), and its overall performance was also higher (p < 0.001). Subsequently, the preformed checklist was revised to incorporate new contributions from ChatGPT. Conclusions ChatGPT, especially version 4, proved effective in generating patient safety checklists for musculoskeletal injections, highlighting the potential of AI to streamline clinical practices. Further enhancements are necessary to fully meet the medical standards., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Yilmaz Muluk et al.)

Purpose: The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score plays a crucial role in intensive care units (ICUs) by providing a reliable measure of a patient's organ function or extent of failure. However, the precise assessment is time-consuming, and daily assessment in clinical practice in the ICU can be challenging., Methods: Realistic scenarios in an ICU setting were created, and the data mining precision of ChatGPT 4.0 Plus, Bard, and Perplexity AI were assessed using Spearman's as well as the intraclass correlation coefficients regarding the accuracy in determining the SOFA score., Results: The strongest correlation was observed between the actual SOFA score and the score calculated by ChatGPT 4.0 Plus ( r correlation coefficient 0.92) (p<0.001). In contrast, the correlation between the actual SOFA and that calculated by Bard was moderate ( r =0.59, p=0.070), while the correlation with Perplexity AI was substantial, at 0.89, with a p<0.001. The interclass correlation coefficient analysis of SOFA with those of ChatGPT 4.0 Plus, Bard, and Perplexity AI was ICC=0.94., Conclusion: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, particularly ChatGPT 4.0 Plus, show significant promise in assisting with automated SOFA score calculations via AI data mining in ICU settings. They offer a pathway to reduce the manual workload and increase the efficiency of continuous patient monitoring and assessment. However, further development and validation are necessary to ensure accuracy and reliability in a critical care environment., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Saner et al.)

Background The rapid advancements in natural language processing have brought about the widespread use of large language models (LLMs) across various medical domains. However, their effectiveness in specialized fields, such as naturopathy, remains relatively unexplored. Objective The study aimed to assess the capability of freely available LLM chatbots in providing naturopathy consultations for various types of diseases and disorders. Methods Five free LLMs (viz., Gemini, Copilot, ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity) were used to converse with 20 clinical cases (simulation of real-world scenarios). Each case had the case details and questions pertinent to naturopathy. The responses were presented to three naturopathy doctors with > 5 years of practice. The answers were rated by them on a five-point Likert-like scale for language fluency, coherence, accuracy, and relevancy. The average of these four attributes is termed perfection in his study. Results The overall score of the LLMs were Gemini 3.81±0.23, Copilot 4.34±0.28, ChatGPT 4.43±0.2, Claude 3.8±0.26, and Perplexity 3.91±0.28 (ANOVA F [3.034, 57.64] = 33.47, P <0.0001. Together, they showed overall ~80% perfection in consultation. The average measure intraclass correlation coefficient among the LLMs for the overall score was 0.463 (95% CI = -0.028 to 0.76), P = 0.03. Conclusion Although the LLM chatbots could help in providing naturopathy and yoga treatment consultation with approximately an overall fair level of perfection, their solution to the user varies across different chatbots and there was very low reliability among them., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Mondal et al.)

Introduction ChatGPT (OpenAI Incorporated, Mission District, San Francisco, United States) is an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot with advanced communication skills and a massive knowledge database. However, its application in medicine, specifically in neurolocalization, necessitates clinical reasoning in addition to deep neuroanatomical knowledge. This article examines ChatGPT's capabilities in neurolocalization. Methods Forty-six text-based neurolocalization case scenarios were presented to ChatGPT-3.5 from November 6th, 2023, to November 16th, 2023. Seven neurosurgeons evaluated ChatGPT's responses to these cases, utilizing a 5-point scoring system recommended by ChatGPT, to score the accuracy of these responses. Results ChatGPT-3.5 achieved an accuracy score of 84.8% in generating "completely correct" and "mostly correct" responses. ANOVA analysis suggested a consistent scoring approach between different evaluators. The mean length of the case text was 69.8 tokens (SD 20.8). Conclusion While this accuracy score is promising, it is not yet reliable for routine patient care. We recommend keeping interactions with ChatGPT concise, precise, and simple to improve response accuracy. As AI continues to evolve, it will hold significant and innovative breakthroughs in medicine., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Dabbas et al.)

Background: This study aims to compare the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 (GPT-3.5) and ChatGPT-4 (GPT-4) on the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) Self-Assessment Examination (SAE) to determine their potential as educational tools., Methods: This study assessed the proportion of correct answers to text-based questions on the 2021 and 2022 ASSH SAE between untrained ChatGPT versions. Secondary analyses assessed the performance of ChatGPT based on question difficulty and question category. The outcomes of ChatGPT were compared with the performance of actual examinees on the ASSH SAE., Results: A total of 238 questions were included in the analysis. Compared with GPT-3.5, GPT-4 provided significantly more correct answers overall (58.0% versus 68.9%, respectively ; P = 0.013), on the 2022 SAE (55.9% versus 72.9%; P = 0.007), and more difficult questions (48.8% versus 63.6%; P = 0.02). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, correct answers were predicted by GPT-4 (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; P = 0.011), increased question difficulty (OR, 0.59; P = 0.009), Bone and Joint questions (OR, 0.18; P = 0.013). Actual examinees scored a mean of 21.6% above GPT-3.5 and 10.7% above GPT-4. The mean percentage of correct answers by actual examinees was significantly higher for correct (versus incorrect) ChatGPT answers.P = 0.013). Actual examinees scored a mean of 21.6% above GPT-3.5 and 10.7% above GPT-4. The mean percentage of correct answers by actual examinees was significantly higher for correct (versus incorrect) ChatGPT answers., Conclusions: GPT-4 demonstrated improved performance over GPT-3.5 on the ASSH SAE, especially on more difficult questions. Actual examinees scored higher than both versions of ChatGPT, but the margin was cut in half by GPT-4., Competing Interests: The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section., (Copyright © 2024, Arango et al.)

Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a chatbot based on a large language model that has gained public interest since its release in November 2022. This systematic review examines the current literature on the potential applications of ChatGPT in cardiology. A systematic literature search was conducted to retrieve all publications on ChatGPT in PubMed, Scopus, MedRxiv, and the Cochrane Library published on or before September 30, 2023. Search terms relating to ChatGPT and cardiology were used. Publications without relevance to ChatGPT and cardiology were excluded. The included publications were divided into cohorts. Cohort A examined ChatGPT's role in improving patient health literacy. Cohort B explored ChatGPT's role in clinical care. Cohort C examined ChatGPT's role in future literature and research. Cohort D included case reports that used ChatGPT. A total of 115 publications were found across all databases. Twenty-four publications met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Cohort A-C included a total of 14 records comprised of editorials/letters to the editor (29%), research letters/correspondence (21%), review papers (21%), observational studies (7%), research studies (7%), and short reports (7%). Cohort D included 10 case reports. No relevant systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, or randomized controlled trials were identified in the search.  Based on this review of the literature, ChatGPT has the potential to enhance patient education, support clinicians providing clinical care, and enhance the development of future literature. However, further studies are needed to understand the potential applications of ChatGPT in cardiology and to address ethical concerns regarding the delivery of medical advice and the authoring of manuscripts., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Sharma et al.)