Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
The Use of Generative AI for Scientific Literature Searches for Systematic Reviews: ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing AI Performance Evaluation
41
Zitationen
7
Autoren
2024
Jahr
Abstract
This is the first study to compare AI and conventional human systematic review methods as a real-time literature collection tool for evidence-based medicine. The results suggest that the use of ChatGPT as a tool for real-time evidence generation is not yet accurate and feasible. Therefore, researchers should be cautious about using such AI. The limitations of this study using the generative pre-trained transformer model are that the search for research topics was not diverse and that it did not prevent the hallucination of generative AI. However, this study will serve as a standard for future studies by providing an index to verify the reliability and consistency of generative AI from a user's point of view. If the reliability and consistency of AI literature search services are verified, then the use of these technologies will help medical research greatly.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.231 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.084 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.444 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.776 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.423 Zit.