Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Evaluation of ChatGPT as a Tool for Answering Clinical Questions in Pharmacy Practice
19
Zitationen
4
Autoren
2024
Jahr
Abstract
<b>Background:</b> In the healthcare field, there has been a growing interest in using artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools to assist healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, in their daily tasks. <b>Objectives:</b> To provide commentary and insight into the potential for generative AI language models such as ChatGPT as a tool for answering practice-based, clinical questions and the challenges that need to be addressed before implementation in pharmacy practice settings. <b>Methods:</b> To assess ChatGPT, pharmacy-based questions were prompted to ChatGPT (Version 3.5; free version) and responses were recorded. Question types included 6 drug information questions, 6 enhanced prompt drug information questions, 5 patient case questions, 5 calculations questions, and 10 drug knowledge questions (e.g., top 200 drugs). After all responses were collected, ChatGPT responses were assessed for appropriateness. <b>Results:</b> ChatGPT responses were generated from 32 questions in 5 categories and evaluated on a total of 44 possible points. Among all ChatGPT responses and categories, the overall score was 21 of 44 points (47.73%). ChatGPT scored higher in pharmacy calculation (100%), drug information (83%), and top 200 drugs (80%) categories and lower in drug information enhanced prompt (33%) and patient case (20%) categories. <b>Conclusion:</b> This study suggests that ChatGPT has limited success as a tool to answer pharmacy-based questions. ChatGPT scored higher in calculation and multiple-choice questions but scored lower in drug information and patient case questions, generating misleading or fictional answers and citations.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.400 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.261 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.695 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 · 5.506 Zit.