Search

Background While large language models show potential as beneficial tools in medicine, their reliability, especially in the realm of obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN), is not fully comprehended. This study seeks to measure and contrast the performance of ChatGPT and HuggingChat in addressing OB-GYN-related medical examination questions, offering insights into their effectiveness in this specialized field. Methods ChatGPT and HuggingChat were subjected to two standardized multiple-choice question banks: Test 1, developed by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), and Test 2, gathered from the Association of Professors of Gynecology & Obstetrics (APGO) Web-Based Interactive Self-Evaluation (uWISE). Responses were analyzed and compared for correctness. Results The two-proportion z-test revealed no statistically significant difference in performance between ChatGPT and HuggingChat on both medical examinations. For Test 1, ChatGPT scored 90%, while HuggingChat scored 85% (p = 0.6). For Test 2, ChatGPT correctly answered 70% of questions, while HuggingChat correctly answered 62% of questions (p = 0.4). Conclusion Awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of artificial intelligence allows for the proper and effective use of its knowledge. Our findings indicate that there is no statistically significant difference in performance between ChatGPT and HuggingChat in addressing medical inquiries. Nonetheless, both platforms demonstrate considerable promise for applications within the medical domain., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Kirshteyn et al.)

Background: Malpractice lawsuits following percutaneous coronary and peripheral interventions are not uncommon. Understanding the most common causes of medical legal action can inform clinicians and prevent future injury and litigation., Methods: LexisNexis is a legal database that compiles all publicly available court records for state and federal jury verdicts and settlements in the United States. We analyzed LexisNexis for malpractice cases involving percutaneous coronary and peripheral interventions between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2020., Results: We found a total of 89 cases over the studied period, of which 55 cases were coronary interventions, 18 cases were peripheral interventions, and 16 cases did not specify the vessel location. Procedural error was alleged in 44 (49.4%) cases, complications in 42 (47.2%) cases, failure to monitor in 22 (24.7%) cases, failure to properly treat in 15 (16.9%) cases, incorrect treatment in 15 (16.9%) cases, failure to refer in 10 (11.2%) cases, lack of informed consent in 9 (10.1%) cases, and delay of intervention in 3 (3.4%) cases. The most common procedural error was vessel perforation (34.1%). Death was the most prevalent precipitating medical outcome of the cases (n = 41, 46.1%). Litigation resolution favored the defendant in 43 (48.3%) cases, the plaintiff in 13 (14.6%) cases, and a settlement was reached in 33 (37.1%) cases., Conclusions: Awareness of the most common causes of litigations among interventional cardiologists and vascular specialists may prevent future legal actions and promote implementations of processes to improve patient care. Our results suggest the importance of attentive patient care before, during, and after percutaneous coronary and peripheral interventions. Procedural expectations and risks should be meticulously discussed with patients and families., (© 2023 The Author(s).)