Search

Drawing parallels from the TV series Suits, this paper investigates the role of emotional intelligence (EQ) in fostering positive workplace culture, specifically within academic libraries. While the high-octane world of corporate law might seem disparate from the calm corridors of academic libraries, the interpersonal dynamics and challenges faced are strikingly similar. Central to this discussion is the recurring motif in Suits: the power of dialogue. Through characters like Harvey Specter and Donna Paulsen, the show emphasizes that open communication can be the key to resolution, even in high-pressure environments. Moreover, with the introduction of "The Donna," a unique AI tool, Suits provides a lens to examine the interplay between technology and EQ, raising questions about the true essence of human communication and its irreplaceability. This paper explores these themes, offering practical strategies for academic libraries to bolster EQ, enhance user experience, and ensure technology complements, rather than replaces, genuine human interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (Gen-AI) are transforming firms and supply chains. However, the empirical literature reporting the benefits, challenges, and outlook of these nascent technologies in operations and supply chain management (OSCM) is limited. This study surveys current projects and perceptions of these technologies in US (n = 119) and UK (n = 181) supply chains. We found that projects range from proof-of-concept to full implementation, with a main focus on operational gains, such as improved customer satisfaction, cost minimisation, and process efficiencies. The main challenges concern data, technological and organisational issues. Expected benefits are dominated by cost savings and enhanced customer experience, but also include increased automation and sustainability. Industries were found to cluster around six groups according to perceived benefits and implementation challenges. Our findings contribute to the emerging literature on Gen-AI use in OSCM, and to management practice by mapping the benefits, challenges, outlook, and maturity level of Gen-AI projects in supply chains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ChatGPT has been at the center of media coverage since its public release at the end of 2022. Given ChatGPT’s capacity for generating human-like text on a wide range of subjects, it is not surprising that educators, especially those who teach writing, have raised concerns regarding the implications of generative AI tools on issues of plagiarism and academic integrity. How do we navigate the already complex discourse around what constitutes plagiarism and how much assistance is acceptable within the bounds of academic integrity? As we contemplate these theoretical questions, a more practical approach is to assess what these tools can do to facilitate students’ learning of existing academic integrity codes. In this short piece, we share our exploratory interactions with ChatGPT relevant to issues of plagiarism and academic integrity, hoping to shed light on how writing instructors can use the tool to facilitate the teaching and learning of ethics in academic writing.

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]

Providing appropriate patient education during a medical encounter remains an important area for improvement across healthcare settings. Personalized resources can offer an impactful way to improve patient understanding and satisfaction during or after a healthcare visit. ChatGPT is a novel chatbot—computer program designed to simulate conversation with humans— that has the potential to assist with care-related questions, clarify discharge instructions, help triage medical problem urgency, and could potentially be used to improve patient-clinician communication. However, due to its training methodology, ChatGPT has inherent limitations, including technical restrictions, risk of misinformation, lack of input standardization, and privacy concerns. Medicolegal liability also remains an open question for physicians interacting with this technology. Nonetheless, careful utilization of ChatGPT in clinical medicine has the potential to supplement patient education in important ways.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative methods are incredibly beneficial to the dissemination and implementation of new digital health interventions; however, these methods can be time intensive and slow down dissemination when timely knowledge from the data sources is needed in ever-changing health systems. Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and their underlying large language models (LLMs) may provide a promising opportunity to expedite the qualitative analysis of textual data, but their efficacy and reliability remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of our study were to evaluate the consistency in themes, reliability of coding, and time needed for inductive and deductive thematic analyses between GenAI (ie, ChatGPT and Bard) and human coders. METHODS: The qualitative data for this study consisted of 40 brief SMS text message reminder prompts used in a digital health intervention for promoting antiretroviral medication adherence among people with HIV who use methamphetamine. Inductive and deductive thematic analyses of these SMS text messages were conducted by 2 independent teams of human coders. An independent human analyst conducted analyses following both approaches using ChatGPT and Bard. The consistency in themes (or the extent to which the themes were the same) and reliability (or agreement in coding of themes) between methods were compared. RESULTS: The themes generated by GenAI (both ChatGPT and Bard) were consistent with 71% (5/7) of the themes identified by human analysts following inductive thematic analysis. The consistency in themes was lower between humans and GenAI following a deductive thematic analysis procedure (ChatGPT: 6/12, 50%; Bard: 7/12, 58%). The percentage agreement (or intercoder reliability) for these congruent themes between human coders and GenAI ranged from fair to moderate (ChatGPT, inductive: 31/66, 47%; ChatGPT, deductive: 22/59, 37%; Bard, inductive: 20/54, 37%; Bard, deductive: 21/58, 36%). In general, ChatGPT and Bard performed similarly to each other across both types of qualitative analyses in terms of consistency of themes (inductive: 6/6, 100%; deductive: 5/6, 83%) and reliability of coding (inductive: 23/62, 37%; deductive: 22/47, 47%). On average, GenAI required significantly less overall time than human coders when conducting qualitative analysis (20, SD 3.5 min vs 567, SD 106.5 min). CONCLUSIONS: The promising consistency in the themes generated by human coders and GenAI suggests that these technologies hold promise in reducing the resource intensiveness of qualitative thematic analysis; however, the relatively lower reliability in coding between them suggests that hybrid approaches are necessary. Human coders appeared to be better than GenAI at identifying nuanced and interpretative themes. Future studies should consider how these powerful technologies can be best used in collaboration with human coders to improve the efficiency of qualitative research in hybrid approaches while also mitigating potential ethical risks that they may pose.

BackgroundPatients find technology tools to be more approachable for seeking sensitive health-related information, such as reproductive health information. The inventive conversational ability of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, such as ChatGPT (OpenAI Inc), offers a potential means for patients to effectively locate answers to their health-related questions digitally.ObjectiveA pilot study was conducted to compare the novel ChatGPT with the existing Google Search technology for their ability to offer accurate, effective, and current information regarding proceeding action after missing a dose of oral contraceptive pill.MethodsA sequence of 11 questions, mimicking a patient inquiring about the action to take after missing a dose of an oral contraceptive pill, were input into ChatGPT as a cascade, given the conversational ability of ChatGPT. The questions were input into 4 different ChatGPT accounts, with the account holders being of various demographics, to evaluate potential differences and biases in the responses given to different account holders. The leading question, "what should I do if I missed a day of my oral contraception birth control?" alone was then input into Google Search, given its nonconversational nature. The results from the ChatGPT questions and the Google Search results for the leading question were evaluated on their readability, accuracy, and effective delivery of information.ResultsThe ChatGPT results were determined to be at an overall higher-grade reading level, with a longer reading duration, less accurate, less current, and with a less effective delivery of information. In contrast, the Google Search resulting answer box and snippets were at a lower-grade reading level, shorter reading duration, more current, able to reference the origin of the information (transparent), and provided the information in various formats in addition to text.ConclusionsChatGPT has room for improvement in accuracy, transparency, recency, and reliability before it can equitably be implemented into health care information delivery and provide the potential benefits it poses. However, AI may be used as a tool for providers to educate their patients in preferred, creative, and efficient ways, such as using AI to generate accessible short educational videos from health care provider-vetted information. Larger studies representing a diverse group of users are needed.

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]

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.

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]