Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
“As a Radiologist”, ChatGPT-4 Gives Better Recommendations to Common Questions of Breast, Lung and Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Results (Preprint)
0
Zitationen
9
Autoren
2024
Jahr
Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Large language models, similar to ChatGPT, potentially offer both advantages and challenges when tasked with answering disease-related questions. It is valuable to investigate whether assigning a specific role to these large language models, such as simulating a radiologist, could lead to more appropriate responses. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> To evaluate and compare the accuracy of ChatGPT-4 with the role of a radiologist (ChatGPT-4R) in answering questions related to breast, lung, and prostate cancer with the direct responses provided by ChatGPT-4. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> The study utilized 25, 40, and 22 common questions pertinent to breast, lung, and prostate cancer, respectively. These questions were posed to ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-4R to yield responses. Subsequently, five radiologists reviewed each question and classified the derived answers into three categories: correct, partially correct, or incorrect. The accuracy of the responses was evaluated employing McNemar tests. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> The analysis of responses related to breast, lung, and prostate cancer showed that ChatGPT-4R answered with an accuracy of 96%, 87.5%, and 100%, respectively. On the other hand, ChatGPT-4's accuracy was 96%, 72.5%, and 95.5% for the same categories. Across all 87 questions, ChatGPT-4R achieved 93.1% correct responses, 4.6% partially correct responses, and 2.3% incorrect responses. In comparison, ChatGPT-4R was more likely to provide correct answers than ChatGPT-4, with a significant difference of 8.0% (P = .02). </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> The performance of ChatGPT-4R exceeds that of ChatGPT-4 in terms of accuracy. However, it remains incapable of providing correct answers to all posed questions. </sec> <sec> <title>CLINICALTRIAL</title> N/A </sec>
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.513 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.407 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.882 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.781 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.571 Zit.