Search

Purpose: To compare the performance of licensed dentists and two software versions (3.5 legacy and 4.0) of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbot (ChatGPT) answering the exam for the 2022 Certification in Implant Dentistry of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO). Materials and Methods: The 50-question, multiple-choice exam of the EAO for the 2022 Certification in Implant Dentistry was obtained. Three groups were created based on the individual or program answering the exam: licensed dentists (D group) and two software versions of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbot (ChatGPT)--3.5 legacy (ChatGPT-3.5 group) and the 4.0 version (ChatGPT-4.0 group). The EAO provided the results of the 2022 examinees (D group). For the ChatGPT groups, the 50 multiple-choice questions were introduced into both ChatGBT versions, and the answers were recorded. Pearson correlation matrix was used to analyze the linear relationship among the subgroups. The inter- and intraoperator reliability was calculated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. One-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests were used to examine the data (α = .05). Results: ChatGPT was able to pass the exam for the 2022 Certification in Implant Dentistry of the EAO. Additionally, the software version of ChatGPT impacted the score obtained. The 4.0 version not only pass the exam but also obtained a significantly higher score than the 3.5 version and licensed dentists completing the same exam. Conclusions: The AI-based chatbot tested not only passed the exam but performed better than licensed dentists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Amyloidosis, a rare multisystem condition, often requires complex, multidisciplinary care. Its low prevalence underscores the importance of efforts to ensure the availability of high-quality patient education materials for better outcomes. ChatGPT (OpenAI) is a large language model powered by artificial intelligence that offers a potential avenue for disseminating accurate, reliable, and accessible educational resources for both patients and providers. Its user-friendly interface, engaging conversational responses, and the capability for users to ask follow-up questions make it a promising future tool in delivering accurate and tailored information to patients. OBJECTIVE: We performed a multidisciplinary assessment of the accuracy, reproducibility, and readability of ChatGPT in answering questions related to amyloidosis. METHODS: In total, 98 amyloidosis questions related to cardiology, gastroenterology, and neurology were curated from medical societies, institutions, and amyloidosis Facebook support groups and inputted into ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4. Cardiology- and gastroenterology-related responses were independently graded by a board-certified cardiologist and gastroenterologist, respectively, who specialize in amyloidosis. These 2 reviewers (RG and DCK) also graded general questions for which disagreements were resolved with discussion. Neurology-related responses were graded by a board-certified neurologist (AAH) who specializes in amyloidosis. Reviewers used the following grading scale: (1) comprehensive, (2) correct but inadequate, (3) some correct and some incorrect, and (4) completely incorrect. Questions were stratified by categories for further analysis. Reproducibility was assessed by inputting each question twice into each model. The readability of ChatGPT-4 responses was also evaluated using the Textstat library in Python (Python Software Foundation) and the Textstat readability package in R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). RESULTS: ChatGPT-4 (n=98) provided 93 (95%) responses with accurate information, and 82 (84%) were comprehensive. ChatGPT-3.5 (n=83) provided 74 (89%) responses with accurate information, and 66 (79%) were comprehensive. When examined by question category, ChatGTP-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 provided 53 (95%) and 48 (86%) comprehensive responses, respectively, to general questions (n=56). When examined by subject, ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 performed best in response to cardiology questions (n=12) with both models producing 10 (83%) comprehensive responses. For gastroenterology (n=15), ChatGPT-4 received comprehensive grades for 9 (60%) responses, and ChatGPT-3.5 provided 8 (53%) responses. Overall, 96 of 98 (98%) responses for ChatGPT-4 and 73 of 83 (88%) for ChatGPT-3.5 were reproducible. The readability of ChatGPT-4s responses ranged from 10th to beyond graduate US grade levels with an average of 15.5 (SD 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Large language models are a promising tool for accurate and reliable health information for patients living with amyloidosis. However, ChatGPTs responses exceeded the American Medical Associations recommended fifth- to sixth-grade reading level. Future studies focusing on improving response accuracy and readability are warranted. Prior to widespread implementation, the technologys limitations and ethical implications must be further explored to ensure patient safety and equitable implementation.

BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR)-based patient messages can contribute to burnout. Messages with a negative tone are particularly challenging to address. In this perspective, we describe our initial evaluation of large language model (LLM)-generated responses to negative EHR patient messages and contend that using LLMs to generate initial drafts may be feasible, although refinement will be needed.MethodsA retrospective sample (n = 50) of negative patient messages was extracted from a health system EHR, de-identified, and inputted into an LLM (ChatGPT). Qualitative analyses were conducted to compare LLM responses to actual care team responses.ResultsSome LLM-generated draft responses varied from human responses in relational connection, informational content, and recommendations for next steps. Occasionally, the LLM draft responses could have potentially escalated emotionally charged conversations.ConclusionFurther work is needed to optimize the use of LLMs for responding to negative patient messages in the EHR.

In this article, we provide a brief overview of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and large language models (LLMs). We then propose eight critical questions that libraries should ask when exploring this technology and its implications for their communities. We argue that libraries have a unique role in facilitating informed and responsible use of GenAI, as well as safeguarding and promoting the values of access, privacy, and intellectual freedom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since ChatGPT's release in November 2022, artificial intelligence has come into the spotlight. Inspiring both fascination and fear, chatbots have stirred debates among researchers, developers, and policy makers. The concerns range from concrete and tangible ones—which include replication of existing biases and discrimination at scale, harvesting personal data, and spreading misinformation—to more existential fears that their development will lead to machines with human-like cognitive abilities. Understanding how chatbots work and the human labor and data involved can better help evaluate the validity of concerns surrounding these systems, which although innovative, are hardly the stuff of science fiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiple research problems specific to advertising emerge from there, including whether and how the advertising industry should address the ethical and legal issues surrounding the possibility of AI-generated advertising content containing false or misleading information as well as strategies for designing and implementing AI-powered advertising in a socially responsible and ethical manner. In her editorial, the previous editor, Shelly Rodgers ([16]) proposed an AI classification schema to systematically understand and develop subdomains in the emerging AI advertising research field along the following three dimensions: AI type, AI function, and learning type. The lack of transparency and consumers' limited ability to understand AI technology and the mechanism and processes of AI-powered advertising would affect advertising outcomes. Since ChatGPT was released on November 30, 2022, followed by Microsoft's announcement of its artificial intelligence (AI)-powered new Bing search engine on February 7, 2023, and Google's Bard release on March 21, 2023, it seems AI generally has taken over conversations across all sectors of society. [Extracted from the article]

This research note suggests the emergence of Artificial Intelligence-powered chatbots like ChatGPT pose challenges to the future of higher education. We as a field should pay attention to issues and opportunities associated with this technology across learning, teaching, and research spaces. We propose ignoring, or being indifferent to, predictions about what technologies like Artificial Intelligence-powered chatbots can do can cause us to do "dumb things." All health and physical education teacher education faculty members should make efforts to learn about these tools to facilitate informed, solution-focused decisions about whether and where to leverage them. We highlight the importance of maintaining sociocritical perspectives when considering use of digital technologies to understand and address digital (in)equity and promote equitable practices. We conclude by emphasizing the need for field-specific consensus statements to guide ethical and appropriate use of Artificial Intelligence-powered chatbots, to ensure the value of these tools is harnessed for the good of the society. [Output by ChatGPT-3] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]