Search

Background: Those receiving the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) over the next ten years will predominantly be part of Generation Z (Gen Z). Recent observations within our clinic suggest that younger people with MS utilize online generative artificial intelligence (AI) platforms for personalized medical advice prior to their first visit with a specialist in neuroimmunology. The use of such platforms is anticipated to increase given the technology driven nature, desire for instant communication, and cost-conscious nature of Gen Z. Our objective was to determine if ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) could diagnose MS in individuals earlier than their clinical timeline, and to assess if the accuracy differed based on age, sex, and race/ethnicity., Methods: People with MS between 18 and 59 years of age were studied. The clinical timeline for people diagnosed with MS was retrospectively identified and simulated using ChatGPT-3.5 (GPT-3.5). Chats were conducted using both actual and derivatives of their age, sex, and race/ethnicity to test diagnostic accuracy. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was estimated for time to diagnosis, clustered by subject. The p-value testing for differences in time to diagnosis was accomplished using a general Wilcoxon test. Logistic regression (subject-specific intercept) was used to capture intra-subject correlation to test the accuracy prior to and after the inclusion of MRI data., Results: The study cohort included 100 unique people with MS. Of those, 50 were members of Gen Z (38 female; 22 White; mean age at first symptom was 20.6 years (y) (standard deviation (SD)=2.2y)), and 50 were non-Gen Z (34 female; 27 White; mean age at first symptom was 37.0y (SD=10.4y)). In addition, a total of 529 people that represented digital simulations of the original cohort of 100 people (333 female; 166 White; 136 Black/African American; 107 Asian; 120 Hispanic, mean age at first symptom was 31.6y (SD=12.4y)) were generated allowing for 629 scripted conversations to be analyzed. The estimated median time to diagnosis in clinic was significantly longer at 0.35y (95% CI=[0.28, 0.48]) versus that by ChatGPT at 0.08y (95% CI=[0.04, 0.24]) (p<0.0001). There was no difference in the diagnostic accuracy between ages and by race/ethnicity prior to the inclusion of MRI data. However, prior to including the MRI data, males had a 47% less likely chance of a correct diagnosis relative to females (p=0.05). Post-MRI data inclusion within GPT-3.5, the odds of an accurate diagnosis was 4.0-fold greater for Gen Z participants, relative to non-Gen Z participants (p=0.01) with the diagnostic accuracy being 68% less in males relative to females (p=0.009), and 75% less for White subjects, relative to non-White subjects (p=0.0004)., Conclusion: Although generative AI platforms enable rapid information access and are not principally designed for use in healthcare, an increase in use by Gen Z is anticipated. However, the obtained responses may not be generalizable to all users and bias may exist in select groups., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest M.P., F.V., K.S., K.B., T.M., A.S., K.B., and M.M. report no disclosures. L.T. received personal compensation for advisory services from EMD Serono. L.H. received personal compensation for consulting services from Biogen Inc. and EMD Serono. P.S. received personal compensation for consulting services from Genentech, EMD Serono, Horizon Therapeutics, and Bristol Myers Squibb and research support from Genentech and Clene Nanomedicine. S.M. reports personal compensation for consulting services from Horizon Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and TG Therapeutics and research support from Genentech. D.T.O. received personal compensation for consulting and advisory services from Biogen Inc., Eisai, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme/Sanofi, Immunic Therapeutics, Moderna, RVL Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Zenas BioPharma along with research support from EMD Serono/Merck and Novartis. D.T.O. has issued national and international patents along with pending patents related to other developed technologies. D.T.O. received royalties for intellectual property licensed by The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System. D.T.O. is the Founder of Revert Health Inc., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) caught Health Professions Education (HPE) institutions off-guard, and they are currently adjusting to a changed educational environment. On the horizon, however, is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) which promises to be an even greater leap and challenge. This Guide begins by explaining the context and nature of AGI, including its characteristics of multi-modality, generality, adaptability, autonomy, and learning ability. It then explores the implications of AGI on students (including personalised learning and electronic tutors) and HPE institutions, and considers some of the context provided by AGI in healthcare. It then raises the problems to address, including the impact on employment, social risks, student adaptability, costs, quality, and others. After considering a possible timeline, the Guide then ends by indicating some first steps that HPE institutions and educators can take to prepare for AGI.

The increasing development of artificial intelligence (AI) generative models in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery will progressively change our practice. Practitioners and patients have access to AI resources, improving information, knowledge, and practice of patient care. This article summarizes the currently investigated applications of AI generative models, particularly Chatbot Generative Pre-trained Transformer, in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery., Competing Interests: Disclosure Competing interest: None. Sponsorships: None. Funding source: None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few studies have examined the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) content detection in scientific writing. This study evaluates the performance of publicly available AI content detectors when applied to both human-written and AI-generated scientific articles., Methods: Articles published in Annals of Surgical Oncology (ASO) during the year 2022, as well as AI-generated articles using OpenAI's ChatGPT, were analyzed by three AI content detectors to assess the probability of AI-generated content. Full manuscripts and their individual sections were evaluated. Group comparisons and trend analyses were conducted by using ANOVA and linear regression. Classification performance was determined using area under the curve (AUC)., Results: A total of 449 original articles met inclusion criteria and were evaluated to determine the likelihood of being generated by AI. Each detector also evaluated 47 AI-generated articles by using titles from ASO articles. Human-written articles had an average probability of being AI-generated of 9.4% with significant differences between the detectors. Only two (0.4%) human-written manuscripts were detected as having a 0% probability of being AI-generated by all three detectors. Completely AI-generated articles were evaluated to have a higher average probability of being AI-generated (43.5%) with a range from 12.0 to 99.9%., Conclusions: This study demonstrates differences in the performance of various AI content detectors with the potential to label human-written articles as AI-generated. Any effort toward implementing AI detectors must include a strategy for continuous evaluation and validation as AI models and detectors rapidly evolve., (© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Purpose of Review: Headache disorders are highly prevalent worldwide. Rapidly advancing capabilities in artificial intelligence (AI) have expanded headache-related research with the potential to solve unmet needs in the headache field. We provide an overview of AI in headache research in this article., Recent Findings: We briefly introduce machine learning models and commonly used evaluation metrics. We then review studies that have utilized AI in the field to advance diagnostic accuracy and classification, predict treatment responses, gather insights from various data sources, and forecast migraine attacks. Furthermore, given the emergence of ChatGPT, a type of large language model (LLM), and the popularity it has gained, we also discuss how LLMs could be used to advance the field. Finally, we discuss the potential pitfalls, bias, and future directions of employing AI in headache medicine. Many recent studies on headache medicine incorporated machine learning, generative AI and LLMs. A comprehensive understanding of potential pitfalls and biases is crucial to using these novel techniques with minimum harm. When used appropriately, AI has the potential to revolutionize headache medicine., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: To assess the diagnostic performance of two chatbots, ChatGPT and Glass, in uveitis diagnosis compared to renowned uveitis specialists, and evaluate clinicians' perception about utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) in ophthalmology practice., Methods: Six cases were presented to uveitis experts, ChatGPT (version 3.5 and 4.0) and Glass 1.0, and diagnostic accuracy was analyzed. Additionally, a survey about the emotions, confidence in utilizing AI-based tools, and the likelihood of incorporating such tools in clinical practice was done., Results: Uveitis experts accurately diagnosed all cases (100%), while ChatGPT achieved a diagnostic success rate of 66% and Glass 1.0 achieved 33%. Most attendees felt excited or optimistic about utilizing AI in ophthalmology practice. Older age and high level of education were positively correlated with increased inclination to adopt AI-based tools., Conclusions: ChatGPT demonstrated promising diagnostic capabilities in uveitis cases and ophthalmologist showed enthusiasm for the integration of AI into clinical practice.

Introduction: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) Large-language models such as ChatGPT have become increasingly popular in various fields. However, the impact of ChatGPT on dental research writing has yet to be quantified. This study aimed to assess ChatGPT's usage in dental research writing and discuss potential advantages and challenges., Methods: Using a bibliometric design, we performed a keyword analysis of specific 'signaling words' indicative of ChatGPT use in the titles/abstracts of 299,695 dental research abstracts indexed PubMed 2018-2024. Statistical comparisons using normalized ratios per 10,000 dental publications compared changes in word frequency before and after the ChatGPT release on November 30, 2022., Results: Before ChatGPT's release, the frequency of abstracts with signaling words was 47.1 per 10,000 papers. After the release, this increased to 224.2 per 10,000 papers, an increase of 177.2 per 10,000 papers (p = 0.014, 95 % CI 53.5-300.7). The word 'delve' showed the most significant usage increase (increased ratio=17.0)., Conclusions: This study is among the first to systematically assess the use of GenAI, specifically ChatGPT, in dental research. We found evidence of the use and growth of ChatGPT in dental research publications. This trend indicates the widespread adoption of GenAI-assisted writing in scientific communication, consistent with other scientific fields. While GenAI can potentially increase productivity and inclusivity, it raises concerns such as bias, inaccuracy, and distortion of academic incentives. Therefore, our findings support the need for clear AI guidelines and standards for academic publishing to ensure responsible use and maintain scientific integrity., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Instructional and clinical technologies have been transforming dental education. With the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI), the opportunities of using AI in education has increased. With the recent advancement of generative AI, large language models (LLMs) and foundation models gained attention with their capabilities in natural language understanding and generation as well as combining multiple types of data, such as text, images, and audio. A common example has been ChatGPT, which is based on a powerful LLM-the GPT model. This paper discusses the potential benefits and challenges of incorporating LLMs in dental education, focusing on periodontal charting with a use case to outline capabilities of LLMs. LLMs can provide personalized feedback, generate case scenarios, and create educational content to contribute to the quality of dental education. However, challenges, limitations, and risks exist, including bias and inaccuracy in the content created, privacy and security concerns, and the risk of overreliance. With guidance and oversight, and by effectively and ethically integrating LLMs, dental education can incorporate engaging and personalized learning experiences for students toward readiness for real-life clinical practice., (© Daniel Claman, Emre Sezgin. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org).)

Background: ChatGPT (OpenAI) has shown great potential in clinical diagnosis and could become an excellent auxiliary tool in clinical practice. This study investigates and evaluates ChatGPT in diagnostic capabilities by comparing the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 across model iterations., Objective: This study aims to evaluate the precise diagnostic ability of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 for colon cancer and its potential as an auxiliary diagnostic tool for surgeons and compare the diagnostic accuracy rates between GTP-3.5 and GPT-4.0. We precisely assess the accuracy of primary and secondary diagnoses and analyze the causes of misdiagnoses in GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 according to 7 categories: patient histories, symptoms, physical signs, laboratory examinations, imaging examinations, pathological examinations, and intraoperative findings., Methods: We retrieved 316 case reports for intestinal cancer from the Chinese Medical Association Publishing House database, of which 286 cases were deemed valid after data cleansing. The cases were translated from Mandarin to English and then input into GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 using a simple, direct prompt to elicit primary and secondary diagnoses. We conducted a comparative study to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4.0 and GPT-3.5. Three senior surgeons from the General Surgery Department, specializing in Colorectal Surgery, assessed the diagnostic information at the Chinese PLA (People's Liberation Army) General Hospital. The accuracy of primary and secondary diagnoses was scored based on predefined criteria. Additionally, we analyzed and compared the causes of misdiagnoses in both models according to 7 categories: patient histories, symptoms, physical signs, laboratory examinations, imaging examinations, pathological examinations, and intraoperative findings., Results: Out of 286 cases, GPT-4.0 and GPT-3.5 both demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for primary diagnoses, but the accuracy rates of GPT-4.0 were significantly higher than GPT-3.5 (mean 0.972, SD 0.137 vs mean 0.855, SD 0.335; t 285 =5.753; P<.001). For secondary diagnoses, the accuracy rates of GPT-4.0 were also significantly higher than GPT-3.5 (mean 0.908, SD 0.159 vs mean 0.617, SD 0.349; t 285 =-7.727; P<.001). GPT-3.5 showed limitations in processing patient history, symptom presentation, laboratory tests, and imaging data. While GPT-4.0 improved upon GPT-3.5, it still has limitations in identifying symptoms and laboratory test data. For both primary and secondary diagnoses, there was no significant difference in accuracy related to age, gender, or system group between GPT-4.0 and GPT-3.5., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that ChatGPT, particularly GPT-4.0, possesses significant diagnostic potential, with GPT-4.0 exhibiting higher accuracy than GPT-3.5. However, GPT-4.0 still has limitations, particularly in recognizing patient symptoms and laboratory data, indicating a need for more research in real-world clinical settings to enhance its diagnostic capabilities., (©Jiayu Liu, Xiuting Liang, Dandong Fang, Jiqi Zheng, Chengliang Yin, Hui Xie, Yanteng Li, Xiaochun Sun, Yue Tong, Hebin Che, Ping Hu, Fan Yang, Bingxian Wang, Yuanyuan Chen, Gang Cheng, Jianning Zhang. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 10.09.2024.)

Background: Breast cancer is a leading global health concern, necessitating advancements in recurrence prediction and management. The development of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support system (AI-CDSS) using ChatGPT addresses this need with the aim of enhancing both prediction accuracy and user accessibility., Objective: This study aims to develop and validate an advanced machine learning model for a web-based AI-CDSS application, leveraging the question-and-answer guidance capabilities of ChatGPT to enhance data preprocessing and model development, thereby improving the prediction of breast cancer recurrence., Methods: This study focused on developing an advanced machine learning model by leveraging data from the Tri-Service General Hospital breast cancer registry of 3577 patients (2004-2016). As a tertiary medical center, it accepts referrals from four branches-3 branches in the northern region and 1 branch on an offshore island in our country-that manage chronic diseases but refer complex surgical cases, including breast cancer, to the main center, enriching our study population's diversity. Model training used patient data from 2004 to 2012, with subsequent validation using data from 2013 to 2016, ensuring comprehensive assessment and robustness of our predictive models. ChatGPT is integral to preprocessing and model development, aiding in hormone receptor categorization, age binning, and one-hot encoding. Techniques such as the synthetic minority oversampling technique address the imbalance of data sets. Various algorithms, including light gradient-boosting machine, gradient boosting, and extreme gradient boosting, were used, and their performance was evaluated using metrics such as the area under the curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and F 1 -score., Results: The light gradient-boosting machine model demonstrated superior performance, with an area under the curve of 0.80, followed closely by the gradient boosting and extreme gradient boosting models. The web interface of the AI-CDSS tool was effectively tested in clinical decision-making scenarios, proving its use in personalized treatment planning and patient involvement., Conclusions: The AI-CDSS tool, enhanced by ChatGPT, marks a significant advancement in breast cancer recurrence prediction, offering a more individualized and accessible approach for clinicians and patients. Although promising, further validation in diverse clinical settings is recommended to confirm its efficacy and expand its use., (©Tai-Han Lin, Hsing-Yi Chung, Ming-Jr Jian, Chih-Kai Chang, Cherng-Lih Perng, Guo-Shiou Liao, Jyh-Cherng Yu, Ming-Shen Dai, Cheng-Ping Yu, Hung-Sheng Shang. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 04.09.2024.)

The debate surrounding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into scientific writing has already attracted significant interest in medical and life sciences. While AI can undoubtedly expedite the process of manuscript creation and correction, it raises several criticisms. The crossover between AI and health sciences is relatively recent, but the use of AI tools among physicians and other scientists who work in the life sciences is growing very fast. Within this whirlwind, it is becoming essential to realize where we are heading and what the limits are, including an ethical perspective. Modern conversational AIs exhibit a context awareness that enables them to understand and remember any conversation beyond any predefined script. Even more impressively, they can learn and adapt as they engage with a growing volume of human language input. They all share neural networks as background mathematical models and differ from old chatbots for their use of a specific network architecture called transformer model [1]. Some of them exceed 100 terabytes (TB) (e.g., Bloom, LaMDA) or even 500 TB (e.g., Megatron-Turing NLG) of text data, the 4.0 version of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was trained with nearly 45 TB, but stays updated by the internet connection and may integrate with different plugins that enhance its functionality, making it multimodal., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Luca Liberale - Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Daiichi-Sankyo. Patents planned, issued or pending: co-inventor on the international patent WO/2020/226,993 filed in April 2020. There are no other conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Increasing population and healthcare costs make changes in the healthcare system necessary. This article deals with ChatGPT's perspective on the future role of radiologists in the AI-driven hospital. This perspective will be augmented by further considerations by the author. AI-based imaging technologies and chatbots like ChatGPT can help improve radiologists' performance and workflow in the future AI-driven hospital. Although basic radiological examinations could be delivered without needing a radiologist, sophisticated imaging procedures will still need the expert opinion of a radiologist., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Large Language Models (LLMs) stand on the brink of reshaping the field of aging and dementia care, challenging the one-size-fits-all paradigm with their capacity for precision medicine and individualized treatment strategies. The "Large Pre-Trained Models with a Focus on AD/ADRD and Healthy Aging" symposium, organized by the National Institute on Aging and the Johns Hopkins Artificial Intelligence & Technology Collaboratory for Aging Research, served as a platform for exploring this potential. The symposium brought together diverse experts to discuss the integration of LLMs in aging and dementia care. They highlighted the roles LLMs can play in clinical decision support and predictive analytics, while also addressing critical ethical concerns including bias, privacy, and the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI). The discussions focused on the need to balance technological advancement with ethical considerations in AI deployment. In conclusion, the symposium projected a future where LLMs not only revolutionize healthcare practices but also pose significant challenges that require careful navigation., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: This scoping review aims to assess the current research landscape of the application and use of large language models (LLMs) and generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), through tools such as ChatGPT in telehealth. Additionally, the review seeks to identify key areas for future research, with a particular focus on AI ethics considerations for responsible use and ensuring trustworthy AI., Materials and Methods: Following the scoping review methodological framework, a search strategy was conducted across 6 databases. To structure our review, we employed AI ethics guidelines and principles, constructing a concept matrix for investigating the responsible use of AI in telehealth. Using the concept matrix in our review enabled the identification of gaps in the literature and informed future research directions., Results: Twenty studies were included in the review. Among the included studies, 5 were empirical, and 15 were reviews and perspectives focusing on different telehealth applications and healthcare contexts. Benefit and reliability concepts were frequently discussed in these studies. Privacy, security, and accountability were peripheral themes, with transparency, explainability, human agency, and contestability lacking conceptual or empirical exploration., Conclusion: The findings emphasized the potential of LLMs, especially ChatGPT, in telehealth. They provide insights into understanding the use of LLMs, enhancing telehealth services, and taking ethical considerations into account. By proposing three future research directions with a focus on responsible use, this review further contributes to the advancement of this emerging phenomenon of healthcare AI., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

Objective: Information retrieval (IR, also known as search) systems are ubiquitous in modern times. How does the emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI), based on large language models (LLMs), fit into the IR process?, Process: This perspective explores the use of generative AI in the context of the motivations, considerations, and outcomes of the IR process with a focus on the academic use of such systems., Conclusions: There are many information needs, from simple to complex, that motivate use of IR. Users of such systems, particularly academics, have concerns for authoritativeness, timeliness, and contextualization of search. While LLMs may provide functionality that aids the IR process, the continued need for search systems, and research into their improvement, remains essential., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Evaluate Artificial Intelligence (AI) language models (ChatGPT-4, BARD, Microsoft Copilot) in simplifying radiology reports, assessing readability, understandability, actionability, and urgency classification., Methods: This study evaluated the effectiveness of these AI models in translating radiology reports into patient-friendly language and providing understandable and actionable suggestions and urgency classifications. Thirty radiology reports were processed using AI tools, and their outputs were assessed for readability (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level), understandability (PEMAT), and the accuracy of urgency classification. ANOVA and Chi-Square tests were performed to compare the models' performances., Results: All three AI models successfully transformed medical jargon into more accessible language, with BARD showing superior readability scores. In terms of understandability, all models achieved scores above 70%, with ChatGPT-4 and BARD leading (p < 0.001, both). However, the AI models varied in accuracy of urgency recommendations, with no significant statistical difference (p = 0.284)., Conclusion: AI language models have proven effective in simplifying radiology reports, thereby potentially improving patient comprehension and engagement in their health decisions. However, their accuracy in assessing the urgency of medical conditions based on radiology reports suggests a need for further refinement., Practice Implications: Incorporating AI in radiology communication can empower patients, but further development is crucial for comprehensive and actionable patient support., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) systems have captivated the attention of healthcare providers and researchers for their potential to improve care processes and outcomes. While these technologies hold promise to automate processes, increase efficiency, and reduce cognitive burden, their use also carries risks. In this commentary, we review basic concepts of AI, outline some of the capabilities and limitations of currently available tools, discuss current and future applications in pediatric hematology/oncology, and provide an evaluation and implementation framework that can be used by pediatric hematologist/oncologists considering the use of AI in clinical practice., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: To evaluate demographic biases in diagnostic accuracy and health advice between generative artificial intelligence (AI) (ChatGPT GPT-4) and traditional symptom checkers like WebMD., Materials and Methods: Combination symptom and demographic vignettes were developed for 27 most common symptom complaints. Standardized prompts, written from a patient perspective, with varying demographic permutations of age, sex, and race/ethnicity were entered into ChatGPT (GPT-4) between July and August 2023. In total, 3 runs of 540 ChatGPT prompts were compared to the corresponding WebMD Symptom Checker output using a mixed-methods approach. In addition to diagnostic correctness, the associated text generated by ChatGPT was analyzed for readability (using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) and qualitative aspects like disclaimers and demographic tailoring., Results: ChatGPT matched WebMD in 91% of diagnoses, with a 24% top diagnosis match rate. Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different across demographic groups, including age, race/ethnicity, and sex. ChatGPT's urgent care recommendations and demographic tailoring were presented significantly more to 75-year-olds versus 25-year-olds (P < .01) but were not statistically different among race/ethnicity and sex groups. The GPT text was suitable for college students, with no significant demographic variability., Discussion: The use of non-health-tailored generative AI, like ChatGPT, for simple symptom-checking functions provides comparable diagnostic accuracy to commercially available symptom checkers and does not demonstrate significant demographic bias in this setting. The text accompanying differential diagnoses, however, suggests demographic tailoring that could potentially introduce bias., Conclusion: These results highlight the need for continued rigorous evaluation of AI-driven medical platforms, focusing on demographic biases to ensure equitable care., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To evaluate the proficiency of a HIPAA-compliant version of GPT-4 in identifying actionable, incidental findings from unstructured radiology reports of Emergency Department patients. To assess appropriateness of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated, patient-facing summaries of these findings., Materials and Methods: Radiology reports extracted from the electronic health record of a large academic medical center were manually reviewed to identify non-emergent, incidental findings with high likelihood of requiring follow-up, further sub-stratified as "definitely actionable" (DA) or "possibly actionable-clinical correlation" (PA-CC). Instruction prompts to GPT-4 were developed and iteratively optimized using a validation set of 50 reports. The optimized prompt was then applied to a test set of 430 unseen reports. GPT-4 performance was primarily graded on accuracy identifying either DA or PA-CC findings, then secondarily for DA findings alone. Outputs were reviewed for hallucinations. AI-generated patient-facing summaries were assessed for appropriateness via Likert scale., Results: For the primary outcome (DA or PA-CC), GPT-4 achieved 99.3% recall, 73.6% precision, and 84.5% F-1. For the secondary outcome (DA only), GPT-4 demonstrated 95.2% recall, 77.3% precision, and 85.3% F-1. No findings were "hallucinated" outright. However, 2.8% of cases included generated text about recommendations that were inferred without specific reference. The majority of True Positive AI-generated summaries required no or minor revision., Conclusion: GPT-4 demonstrates proficiency in detecting actionable, incidental findings after refined instruction prompting. AI-generated patient instructions were most often appropriate, but rarely included inferred recommendations. While this technology shows promise to augment diagnostics, active clinician oversight via "human-in-the-loop" workflows remains critical for clinical implementation., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: ChatGPT, a large-scale language model, is a notable example of AI's potential in health care. However, its effectiveness in clinical settings, especially when compared to human physicians, is not fully understood. This study evaluates ChatGPT's capabilities and limitations in answering questions for Japanese internal medicine specialists, aiming to clarify its accuracy and tendencies in both correct and incorrect responses., Methods: We utilized ChatGPT's answers on four sets of self-training questions for internal medicine specialists in Japan from 2020 to 2023. We ran three trials for each set to evaluate its overall accuracy and performance on nonimage questions. Subsequently, we categorized the questions into two groups: those ChatGPT consistently answered correctly (Confirmed Correct Answer, CCA) and those it consistently answered incorrectly (Confirmed Incorrect Answer, CIA). For these groups, we calculated the average accuracy rates and 95% confidence intervals based on the actual performance of internal medicine physicians on each question and analyzed the statistical significance between the two groups. This process was then similarly applied to the subset of nonimage CCA and CIA questions., Results: ChatGPT's overall accuracy rate was 59.05%, increasing to 65.76% for nonimage questions. 24.87% of the questions had answers that varied between correct and incorrect in the three trials. Despite surpassing the passing threshold for nonimage questions, ChatGPT's accuracy was lower than that of human specialists. There was a significant variance in accuracy between CCA and CIA groups, with ChatGPT mirroring human physician patterns in responding to different question types., Conclusion: This study underscores ChatGPT's potential utility and limitations in internal medicine. While effective in some aspects, its dependence on question type and context suggests that it should supplement, not replace, professional medical judgment. Further research is needed to integrate Artificial Intelligence tools like ChatGPT more effectively into specialized medical practices., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In an era increasingly focused on integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into healthcare, the utility and user satisfaction of AI applications like ChatGPT have become pivotal research areas. This study, conducted in Greece, engaged 193 doctors from various medical departments who interacted with ChatGPT 4.0 through a custom web application. The participants, representing a diverse range of medical specialties, received responses from the specific chatbot tailored to their specific departmental inquiries. Their satisfaction was gauged using a validated form featuring a 1-to-5 rating scale. The results highlighted a possible correlation between the doctors' medical departments and their satisfaction levels with ChatGPT 4.0. Significantly, doctors from certain departments (like General Surgery and Cardiology) reported lower satisfaction scores, ranging from 2.73 to 2.80 out of 5, in contrast to their colleagues from departments like Biopathology and Orthopedics, who scored between 4.00 and 4.46 out of 5. This variation in satisfaction levels underscores the diverse needs within different medical specialties and illuminates both the potential of ChatGPT and the areas needing improvement, especially in delivering department-specific medical information. Despite its limitations, ChatGPT version 4.0 is emerging as a valuable tool in the medical community, indicating potential future advancements and more extensive integration into healthcare practices. The study's findings are crucial in understanding the distinct preferences and requirements of healthcare professionals across various medical departments, thereby guiding the future development of AI tools in healthcare.

Background: Text-generating artificial intelligence (AI) such as ChatGPT offers many opportunities and challenges in medical education. Acquiring practical skills necessary for using AI in a clinical context is crucial, especially for medical education., Objective: This explorative study aimed to investigate the feasibility of integrating ChatGPT into teaching units and to evaluate the course and the importance of AI-related competencies for medical students. Since a possible application of ChatGPT in the medical field could be the generation of information for patients, we further investigated how such information is perceived by students in terms of persuasiveness and quality., Methods: ChatGPT was integrated into 3 different teaching units of a blended learning course for medical students. Using a mixed methods approach, quantitative and qualitative data were collected. As baseline data, we assessed students' characteristics, including their openness to digital innovation. The students evaluated the integration of ChatGPT into the course and shared their thoughts regarding the future of text-generating AI in medical education. The course was evaluated based on the Kirkpatrick Model, with satisfaction, learning progress, and applicable knowledge considered as key assessment levels. In ChatGPT-integrating teaching units, students evaluated videos featuring information for patients regarding their persuasiveness on treatment expectations in a self-experience experiment and critically reviewed information for patients written using ChatGPT 3.5 based on different prompts., Results: A total of 52 medical students participated in the study. The comprehensive evaluation of the course revealed elevated levels of satisfaction, learning progress, and applicability specifically in relation to the ChatGPT-integrating teaching units. Furthermore, all evaluation levels demonstrated an association with each other. Higher openness to digital innovation was associated with higher satisfaction and, to a lesser extent, with higher applicability. AI-related competencies in other courses of the medical curriculum were perceived as highly important by medical students. Qualitative analysis highlighted potential use cases of ChatGPT in teaching and learning. In ChatGPT-integrating teaching units, students rated information for patients generated using a basic ChatGPT prompt as "moderate" in terms of comprehensibility, patient safety, and the correct application of communication rules taught during the course. The students' ratings were considerably improved using an extended prompt. The same text, however, showed the smallest increase in treatment expectations when compared with information provided by humans (patient, clinician, and expert) via videos., Conclusions: This study offers valuable insights into integrating the development of AI competencies into a blended learning course. Integration of ChatGPT enhanced learning experiences for medical students., (© Anita V Thomae, Claudia M Witt, Jürgen Barth. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org).)

Generative AI models, such as ChatGPT, have significantly impacted healthcare through the strategic use of prompts to enhance precision, relevance, and ethical standards. This perspective explores the application of prompt engineering to tailor outputs specifically for healthcare stakeholders: patients, providers, policymakers, and researchers. A nine-stage process for prompt engineering in healthcare is proposed, encompassing identifying applications, understanding stakeholder needs, designing tailored prompts, iterative testing and refinement, ethical considerations, collaborative feedback, documentation, training, and continuous updates. A literature review focused on "Generative AI" or "ChatGPT," prompts, and healthcare informed this study, identifying key prompts through qualitative analysis and expert input. This systematic approach ensures that AI-generated prompts align with stakeholder requirements, offering valuable insights into symptoms, treatments, and prevention, thereby supporting informed decision-making among patients.

Reporting standards are essential to health research as they improve accuracy and transparency. Over time, significant changes have occurred to the requirements for reporting research to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting across a range of study domains and foster methodological rigor. The establishment of the Declaration of Helsinki, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) are just a few of the historic initiatives that have increased research transparency. Through enhanced discoverability, statistical analysis facilitation, article quality enhancement, and language barrier reduction, artificial intelligence (AI)-in particular, large language models like ChatGPT-has transformed academic writing. However, problems with errors that could occur and the need for transparency while utilizing AI tools still exist. Modifying reporting rules to include AI-driven writing tools such as ChatGPT is ethically and practically challenging. In academic writing, precautions for truth, privacy, and responsibility are necessary due to concerns about biases, openness, data limits, and potential legal ramifications. The CONSORT-AI and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-AI Steering Group expands the CONSORT guidelines for AI clinical trials-new checklists like METRICS and CLEAR help to promote transparency in AI studies. Responsible usage of technology in research and writing software adoption requires interdisciplinary collaboration and ethical assessment. This study explores the impact of AI technologies, specifically ChatGPT, on past reporting standards and the need for revised guidelines for open, reproducible, and robust scientific publications., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2024 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.)

Background: OpenAI's ChatGPT is a source of advanced online health information (OHI) that may be integrated into individuals' health information-seeking routines. However, concerns have been raised about its factual accuracy and impact on health outcomes. To forecast implications for medical practice and public health, more information is needed on who uses the tool, how often, and for what., Objective: This study aims to characterize the reasons for and types of ChatGPT OHI use and describe the users most likely to engage with the platform., Methods: In this cross-sectional survey, patients received invitations to participate via the ResearchMatch platform, a nonprofit affiliate of the National Institutes of Health. A web-based survey measured demographic characteristics, use of ChatGPT and other sources of OHI, experience characterization, and resultant health behaviors. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Both 2-tailed t tests and Pearson chi-square tests were used to compare users of ChatGPT OHI to nonusers., Results: Of 2406 respondents, 21.5% (n=517) respondents reported using ChatGPT for OHI. ChatGPT users were younger than nonusers (32.8 vs 39.1 years, P<.001) with lower advanced degree attainment (BA or higher; 49.9% vs 67%, P<.001) and greater use of transient health care (ED and urgent care; P<.001). ChatGPT users were more avid consumers of general non-ChatGPT OHI (percentage of weekly or greater OHI seeking frequency in past 6 months, 28.2% vs 22.8%, P<.001). Around 39.3% (n=206) respondents endorsed using the platform for OHI 2-3 times weekly or more, and most sought the tool to determine if a consultation was required (47.4%, n=245) or to explore alternative treatment (46.2%, n=239). Use characterization was favorable as many believed ChatGPT to be just as or more useful than other OHIs (87.7%, n=429) and their doctor (81%, n=407). About one-third of respondents requested a referral (35.6%, n=184) or changed medications (31%, n=160) based on the information received from ChatGPT. As many users reported skepticism regarding the ChatGPT output (67.9%, n=336), most turned to their physicians (67.5%, n=349)., Conclusions: This study underscores the significant role of AI-generated OHI in shaping health-seeking behaviors and the potential evolution of patient-provider interactions. Given the proclivity of these users to enact health behavior changes based on AI-generated content, there is an opportunity for physicians to guide ChatGPT OHI users on an informed and examined use of the technology., (©Oluwatobiloba Ayo-Ajibola, Ryan J Davis, Matthew E Lin, Jeffrey Riddell, Richard L Kravitz. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 14.08.2024.)

Background : When properly utilized, artificial intelligence generated content (AIGC) may improve virtually every aspect of research, from data gathering to synthesis. Nevertheless, when used inappropriately, the use of AIGC may lead to the dissemination of inaccurate information and introduce potential ethical concerns. Research Design : Cross-sectional. Study Sample: 65 top surgical journals. Data Collection: Each journals submission guidelines and portal was queried for guidelines regarding AIGC use. Results : We found that, in July 2023, 60% of the top 65 surgical journals had introduced guidelines for use, with more surgical journals (68%) introducing guidelines than surgical subspecialty journals (52.5%), including otolaryngology (40%). Furthermore, of the 39 with guidelines, only 69.2% gave specific use guidelines. No included journal, at the time of analysis, explicitly disallowed AIGC use. Conclusions : Altogether, this data suggests that while many journals have quickly reacted to AIGC usage, the quality of such guidelines is still variable. This should be pre-emptively addressed within academia., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Aim: This qualitative study aims to explore the perspectives of nursing students regarding the application and integration of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in their studies., Background: With the increasing prevalence of generative AI tools in academic settings, there is a growing interest in their use among students for learning and assessments., Design: Employing a qualitative descriptive design, this study used semi-structured interviews with nursing students to capture the nuanced insights of the participants., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were digitally recorded and then transcribed verbatim. The research team reviewed all the data independently and then convened to discuss and reach a consensus on the identified themes., Results: This study was conducted within the discipline of nursing at a regional Australian university. Thirteen nursing students, from both first and second year of the programme, were interviewed as part of this study. Six distinct themes emerged from the data analysis, including the educational impact of AI tools, equitable learning environment, ethical considerations of AI use, technology integration, safe and practical utility and generational differences., Conclusions: This initial exploration sheds light on the diverse perspectives of nursing students concerning the incorporation of generative AI tools in their education. It underscores the potential for both positive contributions and challenges associated with the integration of generative AI in nursing education and practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Purpose: This study analyses the performance and proficiency of the three Artificial Intelligence (AI) generative chatbots (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Bard Google AI®) and in answering the Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) of postgraduate (PG) level orthopaedic qualifying examinations., Methods: A series of 120 mock Single Best Answer' (SBA) MCQs with four possible options named A, B, C and D as answers on various musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions covering Trauma and Orthopaedic curricula were compiled. A standardised text prompt was used to generate and feed ChatGPT (both 3.5 and 4.0 versions) and Google Bard programs, which were then statistically analysed., Results: Significant differences were found between responses from Chat GPT 3.5 with Chat GPT 4.0 (Chi square = 27.2, P < 0.001) and on comparing both Chat GPT 3.5 (Chi square = 63.852, P < 0.001) with Chat GPT 4.0 (Chi square = 44.246, P < 0.001) with. Bard Google AI® had 100% efficiency and was significantly more efficient than both Chat GPT 3.5 with Chat GPT 4.0 (p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: The results demonstrate the variable potential of the different AI generative chatbots (Chat GPT 3.5, Chat GPT 4.0 and Bard Google) in their ability to answer the MCQ of PG-level orthopaedic qualifying examinations. Bard Google AI® has shown superior performance than both ChatGPT versions, underlining the potential of such large language processing models in processing and applying orthopaedic subspecialty knowledge at a PG level., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.)

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots, capable of simulating human-like conversations, are becoming more prevalent in healthcare. While this technology offers potential benefits in patient engagement and information accessibility, it raises concerns about potential misuse, misinformation, inaccuracies, and ethical challenges., Methods: This study evaluated a publicly available AI chatbot, ChatGPT, in its responses to nine questions related to breast cancer surgery selected from the American Society of Breast Surgeons' frequently asked questions (FAQ) patient education website. Four breast surgical oncologists assessed the responses for accuracy and reliability using a five-point Likert scale and the Patient Education Materials Assessment (PEMAT) Tool., Results: The average reliability score for ChatGPT in answering breast cancer surgery questions was 3.98 out of 5.00. Surgeons unanimously found the responses understandable and actionable per the PEMAT criteria. The consensus found ChatGPT's overall performance was appropriate, with minor or no inaccuracies., Conclusion: ChatGPT demonstrates good reliability in responding to breast cancer surgery queries, with minor, nonharmful inaccuracies. Its answers are accurate, clear, and easy to comprehend. Notably, ChatGPT acknowledged its informational role and did not attempt to replace medical advice or discourage users from seeking input from a healthcare professional., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) platforms such as ChatGPT and Bard are increasingly utilized to answer patient health care questions. We present the first study to blindly evaluate AI-generated responses to common endourology patient questions against official patient education materials. Methods: Thirty-two questions and answers spanning kidney stones, ureteral stents, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and upper tract urothelial carcinoma were extracted from official Urology Care Foundation (UCF) patient education documents. The same questions were input into ChatGPT 4.0 and Bard, limiting responses to within ±10% of the word count of the corresponding UCF response to ensure fair comparison. Six endourologists blindly evaluated responses from each platform using Likert scales for accuracy, clarity, comprehensiveness, and patient utility. Reviewers identified which response they believed was not AI generated. Finally, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level formulas assessed the readability of each platform response. Ratings were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests. Results: ChatGPT responses were rated the highest across all categories, including accuracy, comprehensiveness, clarity, and patient utility, while UCF answers were consistently scored the lowest, all p  < 0.01. A subanalysis revealed that this trend was consistent across question categories (i.e., kidney stones, BPH, etc.). However, AI-generated responses were more likely to be classified at an advanced reading level, while UCF responses showed improved readability (college or higher reading level: ChatGPT = 100%, Bard = 66%, and UCF = 19%), p  < 0.001. When asked to identify which answer was not AI generated, 54.2% of responses indicated ChatGPT, 26.6% indicated Bard, and only 19.3% correctly identified it as the UCF response. Conclusions: In a blind evaluation, AI-generated responses from ChatGPT and Bard surpassed the quality of official patient education materials in endourology, suggesting that current AI platforms are already a reliable resource for basic urologic care information. AI-generated responses do, however, tend to require a higher reading level, which may limit their applicability to a broader audience.

Purpose: To assess ChatGPT's ability as a resource for educating patients on various aspects of cardiac imaging, including diagnosis, imaging modalities, indications, interpretation of radiology reports, and management., Methods: 30 questions were posed to ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 three times in three separate chat sessions. Responses were scored as correct, incorrect, or clinically misleading categories by three observers-two board certified cardiologists and one board certified radiologist with cardiac imaging subspecialization. Consistency of responses across the three sessions was also evaluated. Final categorization was based on majority vote between at least two of the three observers., Results: ChatGPT-3.5 answered seventeen of twenty eight questions correctly (61 %) by majority vote. Twenty one of twenty eight questions were answered correctly (75 %) by ChatGPT-4 by majority vote. Majority vote for correctness was not achieved for two questions. Twenty six of thirty questions were answered consistently by ChatGPT-3.5 (87 %). Twenty nine of thirty questions were answered consistently by ChatGPT-4 (97 %). ChatGPT-3.5 had both consistent and correct responses to seventeen of twenty eight questions (61 %). ChatGPT-4 had both consistent and correct responses to twenty of twenty eight questions (71 %)., Conclusion: ChatGPT-4 had overall better performance than ChatGTP-3.5 when answering cardiac imaging questions with regard to correctness and consistency of responses. While both ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 answers over half of cardiac imaging questions correctly, inaccurate, clinically misleading and inconsistent responses suggest the need for further refinement before its application for educating patients about cardiac imaging., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Lorenzo Nardo, MD PhD, is the principal investigator (PI) of a service agreement with United Imaging Healthcare, site PI of clinical trials supported by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, PI of a clinical trial supported by Telix Pharmaceuticals, PI of a clinical trial supported by Lantheus Medical Imaging, and PI of a clinical trial supported by GE Healthcare. None of the other authors have any disclosures., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In recent years, the integration ofArtificial intelligence (AI) into various fields of medicine including Gynaecology, has shown promising potential. Surgical treatment of fibroid is myomectomy if uterine preservation and fertility are the primary aims. AI usage begins with the involvement of LLM (Large Language Model) from the point when a patient visits a gynecologist, from identifying signs and symptoms to reaching a diagnosis, providing treatment plans, and patient counseling., Objective: Use of AI (ChatGPT versus Google Bard) in the surgical management of fibroid., Study Design: Identifyingthe patient's problems using LLMs like ChatGPT and Google Bard and giving a treatment optionin 8 clinical scenarios of fibroid. Data entry was done using M.S. Excel and was statistically analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Version 26) for M.S. Windows 2010. All results were presented in tabular form. Data were analyzed using nonparametric tests Chi-square tests or Fisher exact test.pvalues < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The sensitivity of both techniques was calculated. We have used Cohen's Kappa to know the degree of agreement., Results: We found that on the first attempt, ChatGPT gave general answers in 62.5 % of cases and specific answers in 37.5 % of cases. ChatGPT showed improved sensitivity on successive prompts 37.5 % to 62.5 % on the third prompt. Google Bard could not identify the clinical question in 50 % of cases and gave incorrect answers in 12.5 % of cases (p = 0.04). Google Bard showed the same sensitivity of 25 % on all prompts., Conclusion: AI helps to reduce the time to diagnose and plan a treatment strategy for fibroid and acts as a powerful tool in the hands of a gynecologist. However, the usage of AI by patients for self-treatment is to be avoided and should be used only for education and counseling about fibroids., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Patients may seek online information to better understand medical imaging procedures. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of information provided by 2 popular artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots pertaining to common imaging scenarios' risks, benefits, and alternatives., Methods: Fourteen imaging-related scenarios pertaining to computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used. Factors including the use of intravenous contrast, the presence of renal disease, and whether the patient was pregnant were included in the analysis. For each scenario, 3 prompts for outlining the (1) risks, (2) benefits, and (3) alternative imaging choices or potential implications of not using contrast were inputted into ChatGPT and Bard. A grading rubric and a 5-point Likert scale was used by 2 independent reviewers to grade responses. Prompt variability and chatbot context dependency were also assessed., Results: ChatGPT's performance was superior to Bard's in accurately responding to prompts per Likert grading (4.36 ± 0.63 vs 3.25 ± 1.03 seconds, P  < .0001). There was substantial agreement between independent reviewer grading for ChatGPT (κ = 0.621) and Bard (κ = 0.684). Response text length was not statistically different between ChatGPT and Bard (2087 ± 256 characters vs 2162 ± 369 characters, P  = .24). Response time was longer for ChatGPT (34 ± 2 vs 8 ± 1 seconds, P  < .0001)., Conclusions: ChatGPT performed superior to Bard at outlining risks, benefits, and alternatives to common imaging scenarios. Generally, context dependency and prompt variability did not change chatbot response content. Due to the lack of detailed scientific reasoning and inability to provide patient-specific information, both AI chatbots have limitations as a patient information resource., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Purpose: Patients are using online search modalities to learn about their eye health. While Google remains the most popular search engine, the use of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT has increased. Cataract surgery is the most common surgical procedure in the US, and there is limited data on the quality of online information that populates after searches related to cataract surgery on search engines such as Google and LLM platforms such as ChatGPT. We identified the most common patient frequently asked questions (FAQs) about cataracts and cataract surgery and evaluated the accuracy, safety, and readability of the answers to these questions provided by both Google and ChatGPT. We demonstrated the utility of ChatGPT in writing notes and creating patient education materials., Methods: The top 20 FAQs related to cataracts and cataract surgery were recorded from Google. Responses to the questions provided by Google and ChatGPT were evaluated by a panel of ophthalmologists for accuracy and safety. Evaluators were also asked to distinguish between Google and LLM chatbot answers. Five validated readability indices were used to assess the readability of responses. ChatGPT was instructed to generate operative notes, post-operative instructions, and customizable patient education materials according to specific readability criteria., Results: Responses to 20 patient FAQs generated by ChatGPT were significantly longer and written at a higher reading level than responses provided by Google ( p  < .001), with an average grade level of 14.8 (college level). Expert reviewers were correctly able to distinguish between a human-reviewed and chatbot generated response an average of 31% of the time. Google answers contained incorrect or inappropriate material 27% of the time, compared with 6% of LLM generated answers ( p  < .001). When expert reviewers were asked to compare the responses directly, chatbot responses were favored (66%)., Conclusions: When comparing the responses to patients' cataract FAQs provided by ChatGPT and Google, practicing ophthalmologists overwhelming preferred ChatGPT responses. LLM chatbot responses were less likely to contain inaccurate information. ChatGPT represents a viable information source for eye health for patients with higher health literacy. ChatGPT may also be used by ophthalmologists to create customizable patient education materials for patients with varying health literacy.

Background: Among emerging AI technologies, Chat-Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) emerges as a notable language model, uniquely developed through artificial intelligence research. Its proven versatility across various domains, from language translation to healthcare data processing, underscores its promise within medical documentation, diagnostics, research, and education. The current comprehensive review aimed to investigate the utility of ChatGPT in urology education and practice and to highlight its potential limitations. Methods: The authors conducted a comprehensive literature review of the use of ChatGPT and its applications in urology education, research, and practice. Through a systematic review of the literature, with a search strategy using databases, such as PubMed and Embase, we analyzed the advantages and limitations of using ChatGPT in urology and evaluated its potential impact. Results: A total of 78 records were eligible for inclusion. The benefits of ChatGPT were frequently cited across various contexts. In educational/academic benefits mentioned in 21 records (87.5%), ChatGPT showed the ability to assist urologists by offering precise information and responding to inquiries derived from patient data analysis, thereby supporting decision making; in 18 records (75%), advantages comprised personalized medicine, predictive capabilities for disease risks and outcomes, streamlining clinical workflows and improved diagnostics. Nevertheless, apprehensions were expressed regarding potential misinformation, underscoring the necessity for human supervision to guarantee patient safety and address ethical concerns. Conclusion: The potential applications of ChatGPT hold the capacity to bring about transformative changes in urology education, research, and practice. AI technology can serve as a useful tool to augment human intelligence; however, it is essential to use it in a responsible and ethical manner.

Artificial intelligence chatbots based on large language models have recently emerged as an alternative to traditional online searches and are also entering the nutrition space. In this study, we wanted to investigate whether the artificial intelligence chatbots ChatGPT and Bard (now Gemini) can create meal plans that meet the dietary reference intake (DRI) for different dietary patterns. We further hypothesized that nutritional adequacy could be improved by modifying the prompts used. Meal plans were generated by 3 accounts for different dietary patterns (omnivorous, vegetarian, and vegan) using 2 distinct prompts resulting in 108 meal plans total. The nutrient content of the plans was subsequently analyzed and compared to the DRIs. On average, the meal plans contained less energy and carbohydrates but mostly exceeded the DRI for protein. Vitamin D and fluoride fell below the DRI for all plans, whereas only the vegan plans contained insufficient vitamin B 12 . ChatGPT suggested using vitamin B 12 supplements in 5 of 18 instances, whereas Bard never recommended supplements. There were no significant differences between the prompts or the tools. Although the meal plans generated by ChatGPT and Bard met most DRIs, there were some exceptions, particularly for vegan diets. These tools maybe useful for individuals looking for general dietary inspiration, but they should not be relied on to create nutritionally adequate meal plans, especially for individuals with restrictive dietary needs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have nothing to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Online information is a useful resource for patients seeking advice on their orthopaedic care. While traditional websites provide responses to specific frequently asked questions (FAQs), sophisticated artificial intelligence tools may be able to provide the same information to patients in a more accessible manner. Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a powerful artificial intelligence chatbot that has been shown to effectively draw on its large reserves of information in a conversational context with a user. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy and reliability of ChatGPT-generated responses to FAQs regarding total knee arthroplasty., Methods: We distributed a survey that challenged arthroplasty surgeons to identify which of the 2 responses to FAQs on our institution's website was human-written and which was generated by ChatGPT. All questions were total knee arthroplasty-related. The second portion of the survey investigated the potential to further leverage ChatGPT to assist with translation and accessibility as a means to better meet the needs of our diverse patient population., Results: Surgeons correctly identified the ChatGPT-generated responses 4 out of 10 times on average (range: 0 to 7). No consensus was reached on any of the responses to the FAQs. Additionally, over 90% of our surgeons strongly encouraged the use of ChatGPT to more effectively accommodate the diverse patient populations that seek information from our hospital's online resources., Conclusions: ChatGPT provided accurate, reliable answers to our website's FAQs. Surgeons also agreed that ChatGPT's ability to provide targeted, language-specific responses to FAQs would be of benefit to our diverse patient population., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Large language models (LLMs) are a form of artificial intelligence (AI) that uses deep learning techniques to understand, summarize and generate content. The potential benefits of LLMs in healthcare is predicted to be immense. The objective of this study was to examine the quality of patient information leaflets (PILs) produced by 3 LLMs on urological topics., Methods: Prompts were created to generate PILs from 3 LLMs: ChatGPT-4, PaLM 2 (Google Bard) and Llama 2 (Meta) across four urology topics (circumcision, nephrectomy, overactive bladder syndrome, and transurethral resection of the prostate). PILs were evaluated using a quality assessment checklist. PIL readability was assessed by the Average Reading Level Consensus Calculator., Results: PILs generated by PaLM 2 had the highest overall average quality score (3.58), followed by Llama 2 (3.34) and ChatGPT-4 (3.08). PaLM 2 generated PILs were of the highest quality in all topics except TURP and was the only LLM to include images. Medical inaccuracies were present in all generated content including instances of significant error. Readability analysis identified PaLM 2 generated PILs as the simplest (age 14-15 average reading level). Llama 2 PILs were the most difficult (age 16-17 average)., Conclusion: While LLMs can generate PILs that may help reduce healthcare professional workload, generated content requires clinician input for accuracy and inclusion of health literacy aids, such as images. LLM-generated PILs were above the average reading level for adults, necessitating improvement in LLM algorithms and/or prompt design. How satisfied patients are to LLM-generated PILs remains to be evaluated., (© 2024. Crown.)

Background: To evaluate the accuracy, reliability, quality, and readability of responses generated by ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot in relation to orthodontic clear aligners., Methods: Frequently asked questions by patients/laypersons about clear aligners on websites were identified using the Google search tool and these questions were posed to ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot AI models. Responses were assessed using a five-point Likert scale for accuracy, the modified DISCERN scale for reliability, the Global Quality Scale (GQS) for quality, and the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) for readability., Results: ChatGPT-4 responses had the highest mean Likert score (4.5 ± 0.61), followed by Copilot (4.35 ± 0.81), ChatGPT-3.5 (4.15 ± 0.75) and Gemini (4.1 ± 0.72). The difference between the Likert scores of the chatbot models was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Copilot had a significantly higher modified DISCERN and GQS score compared to both Gemini, ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). Gemini's modified DISCERN and GQS score was statistically higher than ChatGPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). Gemini also had a significantly higher FRES compared to both ChatGPT-4, Copilot and ChatGPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). The mean FRES was 38.39 ± 11.56 for ChatGPT-3.5, 43.88 ± 10.13 for ChatGPT-4 and 41.72 ± 10.74 for Copilot, indicating that the responses were difficult to read according to the reading level. The mean FRES for Gemini is 54.12 ± 10.27, indicating that Gemini's responses are more readable than other chatbots., Conclusions: All chatbot models provided generally accurate, moderate reliable and moderate to good quality answers to questions about the clear aligners. Furthermore, the readability of the responses was difficult. ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot have significant potential as patient information tools in orthodontics, however, to be fully effective they need to be supplemented with more evidence-based information and improved readability., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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).)

The ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer), an AI-based chatbot, has garnered significant attention in healthcare. We methodically extracted two significant English databases (PubMed and Web of Science) to examine the current state of research and potential future directions for ChatGPT in the healthcare field. Following screening, 921 publications were included in the analysis, demonstrating a sharp rise in the previous year and a peak number of publications released in October 2023. Meanwhile, we obtained 88 items and categorized them into 10 clusters, of which artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, and humans ranked among the top three in terms of frequency.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is defined as "the capacity of a computer, robot, programmed device, or software application to perform operations and tasks analogous to learning and decision making in humans, such as speech recognition or question answering. Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) represent an example of this promising technology as it is designed to communicate and interact with people similarly to a human being". The introduction of any form of AI based technologies could be beneficial in nursing education and healthcare provision. A questionnaire co-created with ChatGPT was administered to nursing students, nurses and educators aiming at exploring how those technologies would impact on the world of healthcare and education. 176 participants were recruited. Data analysis showed that the perceived potential benefits of introducing AI include: improved quality of nursing care, of the diagnostic process and of job satisfaction. Conversely, some of the risks would be: limited opportunities to critical thinking and reduction of interaction and collaboration.

With the current artificial intelligence (AI) boom, new innovative and accessible applications requiring minimal computer science expertise have been developed for discipline specific and mainstream purposes. Apple Intelligence, a new AI model developed by Apple, aims to enhance user experiences with new functionalities across many of its product offerings. Although designed for the everyday user, many of these advances have potential applications in neurosurgery. These include functionalities for writing, image generation, and upgraded integrations to the voice command assistant Siri. Future integrations may also include other Apple products such as the vision pro for preoperative and intraoperative applications. Considering the popularity of Apple products, particularly the iPhone, it is important to appraise this new technology and how it can be leveraged to enhance patient care, improve neurosurgical education, and facilitate more efficiency for the neurosurgeon., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

(1) Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has flourished in recent years. More specifically, generative AI has had broad applications in many disciplines. While mental illness is on the rise, AI has proven valuable in aiding the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. However, there is little to no research about precisely how much interest there is in AI technology. (2) Methods: We performed a Google Trends search for "AI and mental health" and compared relative search volume (RSV) indices of "AI", "AI and Depression", and "AI and anxiety". This time series study employed Box-Jenkins time series modeling to forecast long-term interest through the end of 2024. (3) Results: Within the United States, AI interest steadily increased throughout 2023, with some anomalies due to media reporting. Through predictive models, we found that this trend is predicted to increase 114% through the end of the year 2024, with public interest in AI applications being on the rise. (4) Conclusions: According to our study, we found that the awareness of AI has drastically increased throughout 2023, especially in mental health. This demonstrates increasing public awareness of mental health and AI, making advocacy and education about AI technology of paramount importance.

Background: Academic paper writing holds significant importance in the education of medical students, and poses a clear challenge for those whose first language is not English. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of employing large language models, particularly ChatGPT, in improving the English academic writing skills of these students., Methods: A cohort of 25 third-year medical students from China was recruited. The study consisted of two stages. Firstly, the students were asked to write a mini paper. Secondly, the students were asked to revise the mini paper using ChatGPT within two weeks. The evaluation of the mini papers focused on three key dimensions, including structure, logic, and language. The evaluation method incorporated both manual scoring and AI scoring utilizing the ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 models. Additionally, we employed a questionnaire to gather feedback on students' experience in using ChatGPT., Results: After implementing ChatGPT for writing assistance, there was a notable increase in manual scoring by 4.23 points. Similarly, AI scoring based on the ChatGPT-3.5 model showed an increase of 4.82 points, while the ChatGPT-4 model showed an increase of 3.84 points. These results highlight the potential of large language models in supporting academic writing. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between manual scoring and ChatGPT-4 scoring, indicating the potential of ChatGPT-4 to assist teachers in the grading process. Feedback from the questionnaire indicated a generally positive response from students, with 92% acknowledging an improvement in the quality of their writing, 84% noting advancements in their language skills, and 76% recognizing the contribution of ChatGPT in supporting academic research., Conclusion: The study highlighted the efficacy of large language models like ChatGPT in augmenting the English academic writing proficiency of non-native speakers in medical education. Furthermore, it illustrated the potential of these models to make a contribution to the educational evaluation process, particularly in environments where English is not the primary language., (© 2024. The Author(s).)