Search

This study explores disparities and opportunities in healthcare information provided by AI chatbots. We focused on recommendations for adjuvant therapy in endometrial cancer, analyzing responses across four regions (Indonesia, Nigeria, Taiwan, USA) and three platforms (Bard, Bing, ChatGPT-3.5). Utilizing previously published cases, we asked identical questions to chatbots from each location within a 24-h window. Responses were evaluated in a double-blinded manner on relevance, clarity, depth, focus, and coherence by ten experts in endometrial cancer. Our analysis revealed significant variations across different countries/regions (p < 0.001). Interestingly, Bing's responses in Nigeria consistently outperformed others (p < 0.05), excelling in all evaluation criteria (p < 0.001). Bard also performed better in Nigeria compared to other regions (p < 0.05), consistently surpassing them across all categories (p < 0.001, with relevance reaching p < 0.01). Notably, Bard's overall scores were significantly higher than those of ChatGPT-3.5 and Bing in all locations (p < 0.001). These findings highlight disparities and opportunities in the quality of AI-powered healthcare information based on user location and platform. This emphasizes the necessity for more research and development to guarantee equal access to trustworthy medical information through AI technologies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Artificial intelligence (AI) broadly influences different aspects of human life, especially human communication. One of the main concerns of the broad use of AI in daily interactions among different people could be whether it helps them interact easily or complicates their interactions. To answer the mentioned question, this study assessed the impacts of AI on intercultural communication among postgraduate students in a multicultural university environment. A newly developed survey instrument was used to conduct this study. The participants of this study were 115 postgraduate students from nine different countries. The descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, and Bivariate correlation tests of the 29th version of IBM-SPSS software were used to analyze the quantitative data, and inductive coding and conceptual content analysis were used to code and analyze the qualitative data. Based on descriptive results, the vast majority (93%) of the participants already used and experienced AI in their daily lives, and the majority of them believed that AI and AI technologies connect different cultures, reduce language and cultural barriers, and help people of different cultures to interact and be connected. Based on the results from the correlation test, there were strong positive correlations between AI attitudes and AI benefits, and also between AI regulation and AI benefits., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have potential applications in medical education such as helping students study for their licensing exams by discussing unclear questions with them. However, they require evaluation on these complex tasks. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how well publicly accessible LLMs performed on simulated UK medical board exam questions. 423 board-style questions from 9 UK exams (MRCS, MRCP, etc.) were answered by seven LLMs (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Bard, Perplexity, Claude, Bing, Claude Instant). There were 406 multiple-choice, 13 true/false, and 4 "choose N" questions covering topics in surgery, pediatrics, and other disciplines. The accuracy of the output was graded. Statistics were used to analyze differences among LLMs. Leaked questions were excluded from the primary analysis. ChatGPT 4.0 scored (78.2%), Bing (67.2%), Claude (64.4%), and Claude Instant (62.9%). Perplexity scored the lowest (56.1%). Scores differed significantly between LLMs overall (p < 0.001) and in pairwise comparisons. All LLMs scored higher on multiple-choice vs true/false or "choose N" questions. LLMs demonstrated limitations in answering certain questions, indicating refinements needed before primary reliance in medical education. However, their expanding capabilities suggest a potential to improve training if thoughtfully implemented. Further research should explore specialty specific LLMs and optimal integration into medical curricula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For common diseases such as lung cancer, patients often use the internet to obtain medical information. As a result of advances in artificial intelligence and large language models such as ChatGPT, patients and health professionals use these tools to obtain medical information. The aim of this study was to evaluate the readability of ChatGPT-generated responses with different readability scales in the context of lung cancer. The most common questions in the lung cancer section of Medscape® were reviewed, and questions on the definition, etiology, risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of lung cancer (both NSCLC and SCLC) were selected. A set of 80 questions were asked 10 times to ChatGPT via the OpenAI API. ChatGPT's responses were tested using various readability formulas. The mean Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning FOG Scale, SMOG Index, Automated Readability Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Linsear Write Formula, Dale-Chall Readability Score, and Spache Readability Formula scores are at a moderate level (mean and standard deviation: 40.52 ± 9.81, 12.56 ± 1.66, 13.63 ± 1.54, 14.61 ± 1.45, 15.04 ± 1.97, 14.24 ± 1.90, 11.96 ± 2.55, 10.03 ± 0.63 and 5.93 ± 0.50, respectively). The readability levels of the answers generated by ChatGPT are "collage" and above and are difficult to read. Perhaps in the near future, the ChatGPT can be programmed to produce responses that are appropriate for people of different educational and age groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This study explores disparities and opportunities in healthcare information provided by AI chatbots. We focused on recommendations for adjuvant therapy in endometrial cancer, analyzing responses across four regions (Indonesia, Nigeria, Taiwan, USA) and three platforms (Bard, Bing, ChatGPT-3.5). Utilizing previously published cases, we asked identical questions to chatbots from each location within a 24-h window. Responses were evaluated in a double-blinded manner on relevance, clarity, depth, focus, and coherence by ten experts in endometrial cancer. Our analysis revealed significant variations across different countries/regions (p

Abstract For common diseases such as lung cancer, patients often use the internet to obtain medical information. As a result of advances in artificial intelligence and large language models such as ChatGPT, patients and health professionals use these tools to obtain medical information. The aim of this study was to evaluate the readability of ChatGPT-generated responses with different readability scales in the context of lung cancer. The most common questions in the lung cancer section of Medscape® were reviewed, and questions on the definition, etiology, risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of lung cancer (both NSCLC and SCLC) were selected. A set of 80 questions were asked 10 times to ChatGPT via the OpenAI API. ChatGPT's responses were tested using various readability formulas. The mean Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning FOG Scale, SMOG Index, Automated Readability Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Linsear Write Formula, Dale-Chall Readability Score, and Spache Readability Formula scores are at a moderate level (mean and standard deviation: 40.52 ± 9.81, 12.56 ± 1.66, 13.63 ± 1.54, 14.61 ± 1.45, 15.04 ± 1.97, 14.24 ± 1.90, 11.96 ± 2.55, 10.03 ± 0.63 and 5.93 ± 0.50, respectively). The readability levels of the answers generated by ChatGPT are "collage" and above and are difficult to read. Perhaps in the near future, the ChatGPT can be programmed to produce responses that are appropriate for people of different educational and age groups.

While there is data assessing the test performance of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, including the Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4.0 (GPT 4) chatbot (ChatGPT 4.0), there is scarce data on its diagnostic accuracy of clinical cases. We assessed the large language model (LLM), ChatGPT 4.0, on its ability to answer questions from the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 2, as well as its ability to generate a differential diagnosis based on corresponding clinical vignettes from published case reports. A total of 109 Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) practice questions were inputted into both ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0, asking ChatGPT to pick the correct answer. Compared to its previous version, ChatGPT 3.5, we found improved accuracy of ChatGPT 4.0 when answering these questions, from 47.7 to 87.2% (p = 0.035) respectively. Utilizing the topics tested on Step 2 CK questions, we additionally found 63 corresponding published case report vignettes and asked ChatGPT 4.0 to come up with its top three differential diagnosis. ChatGPT 4.0 accurately created a shortlist of differential diagnoses in 74.6% of the 63 case reports (74.6%). We analyzed ChatGPT 4.0's confidence in its diagnosis by asking it to rank its top three differentials from most to least likely. Out of the 47 correct diagnoses, 33 were the first (70.2%) on the differential diagnosis list, 11 were second (23.4%), and three were third (6.4%). Our study shows the continued iterative improvement in ChatGPT's ability to answer standardized USMLE questions accurately and provides insights into ChatGPT's clinical diagnostic accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health equity and accessing Spanish kidney transplant information continues being a substantial challenge facing the Hispanic community. This study evaluated ChatGPT's capabilities in translating 54 English kidney transplant frequently asked questions (FAQs) into Spanish using two versions of the AI model, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0. The FAQs included 19 from Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), 15 from National Health Service (NHS), and 20 from National Kidney Foundation (NKF). Two native Spanish-speaking nephrologists, both of whom are of Mexican heritage, scored the translations for linguistic accuracy and cultural sensitivity tailored to Hispanics using a 1–5 rubric. The inter-rater reliability of the evaluators, measured by Cohen's Kappa, was 0.85. Overall linguistic accuracy was 4.89 ± 0.31 for GPT-3.5 versus 4.94 ± 0.23 for GPT-4.0 (non-significant p = 0.23). Both versions scored 4.96 ± 0.19 in cultural sensitivity (p = 1.00). By source, GPT-3.5 linguistic accuracy was 4.84 ± 0.37 (OPTN), 4.93 ± 0.26 (NHS), 4.90 ± 0.31 (NKF). GPT-4.0 scored 4.95 ± 0.23 (OPTN), 4.93 ± 0.26 (NHS), 4.95 ± 0.22 (NKF). For cultural sensitivity, GPT-3.5 scored 4.95 ± 0.23 (OPTN), 4.93 ± 0.26 (NHS), 5.00 ± 0.00 (NKF), while GPT-4.0 scored 5.00 ± 0.00 (OPTN), 5.00 ± 0.00 (NHS), 4.90 ± 0.31 (NKF). These high linguistic and cultural sensitivity scores demonstrate Chat GPT effectively translated the English FAQs into Spanish across systems. The findings suggest Chat GPT's potential to promote health equity by improving Spanish access to essential kidney transplant information. Additional research should evaluate its medical translation capabilities across diverse contexts/languages. These English-to-Spanish translations may increase access to vital transplant information for underserved Spanish-speaking Hispanic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Free-text analysis using machine learning (ML)-based natural language processing (NLP) shows promise for diagnosing psychiatric conditions. Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has demonstrated preliminary initial feasibility for this purpose; however, whether it can accurately assess mental illness remains to be determined. This study evaluates the effectiveness of ChatGPT and the text-embedding-ada-002 (ADA) model in detecting post-traumatic stress disorder following childbirth (CB-PTSD), a maternal postpartum mental illness affecting millions of women annually, with no standard screening protocol. Using a sample of 1295 women who gave birth in the last six months and were 18+ years old, recruited through hospital announcements, social media, and professional organizations, we explore ChatGPT's and ADA's potential to screen for CB-PTSD by analyzing maternal childbirth narratives. The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5; cutoff 31) was used to assess CB-PTSD. By developing an ML model that utilizes numerical vector representation of the ADA model, we identify CB-PTSD via narrative classification. Our model outperformed (F1 score: 0.81) ChatGPT and six previously published large text-embedding models trained on mental health or clinical domains data, suggesting that the ADA model can be harnessed to identify CB-PTSD. Our modeling approach could be generalized to assess other mental health disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As AI systems proliferate, their greenhouse gas emissions are an increasingly important concern for human societies. In this article, we present a comparative analysis of the carbon emissions associated with AI systems (ChatGPT, BLOOM, DALL-E2, Midjourney) and human individuals performing equivalent writing and illustrating tasks. Our findings reveal that AI systems emit between 130 and 1500 times less CO2e per page of text generated compared to human writers, while AI illustration systems emit between 310 and 2900 times less CO2e per image than their human counterparts. Emissions analyses do not account for social impacts such as professional displacement, legality, and rebound effects. In addition, AI is not a substitute for all human tasks. Nevertheless, at present, the use of AI holds the potential to carry out several major activities at much lower emission levels than can humans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of publicly accessible artificial intelligence (AI) large language models such as ChatGPT has given rise to global conversations on the implications of AI capabilities. Emergent research on AI has challenged the assumption that creative potential is a uniquely human trait thus, there seems to be a disconnect between human perception versus what AI is objectively capable of creating. Here, we aimed to assess the creative potential of humans in comparison to AI. In the present study, human participants (N = 151) and GPT-4 provided responses for the Alternative Uses Task, Consequences Task, and Divergent Associations Task. We found that AI was robustly more creative along each divergent thinking measurement in comparison to the human counterparts. Specifically, when controlling for fluency of responses, AI was more original and elaborate. The present findings suggest that the current state of AI language models demonstrate higher creative potential than human respondents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a global health challenge, and patient education plays a crucial role in its early detection and treatment. Despite progress in AI technology, as exemplified by transformer-like models such as ChatGPT, there remains a lack of in-depth understanding of their efficacy for medical purposes. We aimed to assess the proficiency of ChatGPT in the field of popular science, specifically in answering questions related to CRC diagnosis and treatment, using the book "Colorectal Cancer: Your Questions Answered" as a reference. In general, 131 valid questions from the book were manually input into ChatGPT. Responses were evaluated by clinical physicians in the relevant fields based on comprehensiveness and accuracy of information, and scores were standardized for comparison. Not surprisingly, ChatGPT showed high reproducibility in its responses, with high uniformity in comprehensiveness, accuracy, and final scores. However, the mean scores of ChatGPT's responses were significantly lower than the benchmarks, indicating it has not reached an expert level of competence in CRC. While it could provide accurate information, it lacked in comprehensiveness. Notably, ChatGPT performed well in domains of radiation therapy, interventional therapy, stoma care, venous care, and pain control, almost rivaling the benchmarks, but fell short in basic information, surgery, and internal medicine domains. While ChatGPT demonstrated promise in specific domains, its general efficiency in providing CRC information falls short of expert standards, indicating the need for further advancements and improvements in AI technology for patient education in healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence models, like ChatGPT, have the potential to revolutionize higher education when implemented properly. This study aimed to investigate the factors influencing university students' attitudes and usage of ChatGPT in Arab countries. The survey instrument "TAME-ChatGPT" was administered to 2240 participants from Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. Of those, 46.8% heard of ChatGPT, and 52.6% used it before the study. The results indicated that a positive attitude and usage of ChatGPT were determined by factors like ease of use, positive attitude towards technology, social influence, perceived usefulness, behavioral/cognitive influences, low perceived risks, and low anxiety. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated the adequacy of the "TAME-ChatGPT" constructs. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the attitude towards ChatGPT usage was significantly influenced by country of residence, age, university type, and recent academic performance. This study validated "TAME-ChatGPT" as a useful tool for assessing ChatGPT adoption among university students. The successful integration of ChatGPT in higher education relies on the perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, positive attitude towards technology, social influence, behavioral/cognitive elements, low anxiety, and minimal perceived risks. Policies for ChatGPT adoption in higher education should be tailored to individual contexts, considering the variations in student attitudes observed in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) has been a subject of performance study for artificial intelligence (AI) models. However, their performance on questions involving USMLE soft skills remains unexplored. This study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT and GPT-4 on USMLE questions involving communication skills, ethics, empathy, and professionalism. We used 80 USMLE-style questions involving soft skills, taken from the USMLE website and the AMBOSS question bank. A follow-up query was used to assess the models' consistency. The performance of the AI models was compared to that of previous AMBOSS users. GPT-4 outperformed ChatGPT, correctly answering 90% compared to ChatGPT's 62.5%. GPT-4 showed more confidence, not revising any responses, while ChatGPT modified its original answers 82.5% of the time. The performance of GPT-4 was higher than that of AMBOSS's past users. Both AI models, notably GPT-4, showed capacity for empathy, indicating AI's potential to meet the complex interpersonal, ethical, and professional demands intrinsic to the practice of medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The release and rapid diffusion of ChatGPT have caught the attention of educators worldwide. Some educators are enthusiastic about its potential to support learning. Others are concerned about how it might circumvent learning opportunities or contribute to misinformation. To better understand reactions about ChatGPT concerning education, we analyzed Twitter data (16,830,997 tweets from 5,541,457 users). Based on topic modeling and sentiment analysis, we provide an overview of global perceptions and reactions to ChatGPT regarding education. ChatGPT triggered a massive response on Twitter, with education being the most tweeted content topic. Topics ranged from specific (e.g., cheating) to broad (e.g., opportunities), which were discussed with mixed sentiment. We traced that authority decisions may influence public opinions. We discussed that the average reaction on Twitter (e.g., using ChatGPT to cheat in exams) differs from discussions in which education and teaching–learning researchers are likely to be more interested (e.g., ChatGPT as an intelligent learning partner). This study provides insights into people's reactions when new groundbreaking technology is released and implications for scientific and policy communication in rapidly changing circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of large language models has led to the development of powerful tools such as ChatGPT that can produce text indistinguishable from human-generated work. With the increasing accessibility of such technology, students across the globe may utilize it to help with their school work—a possibility that has sparked ample discussion on the integrity of student evaluation processes in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). To date, it is unclear how such tools perform compared to students on university-level courses across various disciplines. Further, students' perspectives regarding the use of such tools in school work, and educators' perspectives on treating their use as plagiarism, remain unknown. Here, we compare the performance of the state-of-the-art tool, ChatGPT, against that of students on 32 university-level courses. We also assess the degree to which its use can be detected by two classifiers designed specifically for this purpose. Additionally, we conduct a global survey across five countries, as well as a more in-depth survey at the authors' institution, to discern students' and educators' perceptions of ChatGPT's use in school work. We find that ChatGPT's performance is comparable, if not superior, to that of students in a multitude of courses. Moreover, current AI-text classifiers cannot reliably detect ChatGPT's use in school work, due to both their propensity to classify human-written answers as AI-generated, as well as the relative ease with which AI-generated text can be edited to evade detection. Finally, there seems to be an emerging consensus among students to use the tool, and among educators to treat its use as plagiarism. Our findings offer insights that could guide policy discussions addressing the integration of artificial intelligence into educational frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ChatGPT is not only fun to chat with, but it also searches information, answers questions, and gives advice. With consistent moral advice, it can improve the moral judgment and decisions of users. Unfortunately, ChatGPT's advice is not consistent. Nonetheless, it does influence users' moral judgment, we find in an experiment, even if they know they are advised by a chatting bot, and they underestimate how much they are influenced. Thus, ChatGPT corrupts rather than improves its users' moral judgment. While these findings call for better design of ChatGPT and similar bots, we also propose training to improve users' digital literacy as a remedy. Transparency, however, is not sufficient to enable the responsible use of AI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]