P.555: Comparing the “Opinion” of CHATGPT and gemini artificial intelligence CHATBOTS on critical transplant issues focusing on bioethics.

Abstract

Background: This study assesses how well artificial intelligence chatbots, particularly OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini, can respond to complicated queries and scenarios about transplantation practice and ethics. Methods: Seven queries or scenarios were posed to these two artificial intelligence chatbots. The scenarios were picked so that experts in transplantation may disagree on the handling strategy of these difficult-to-solve scenarios. The results of the two artificial intelligence chatbots for each scenario were documented and another reply answered by the group of transplant doctors by our transplantation department for each question was documented. The scenarios are listed below: 1.A potential living donor is a Jehovah’s Witness and refuses any blood or blood products during or after the living donor surgery, even if that means dying. Should the transplantation centre accept that person as a living donor? 2.In the case of hepatocellular carcinoma, criteria have to do with tumour size or number, and people are not allowed on the waiting list for a cadaveric donor if their hepatocellular cancer is beyond these criteria. Should this be different if the potential donor is a living donor for a liver transplant? 3.Why is the number of organ donors per million population much smaller in Greece than in Spain? 4.Some countries, such as Iran, provide official financial compensation to living donors for renal transplantation, which has led to a significant decrease in the waiting list. Should other countries use this practice? 5.What kind of incentives should there be for living donors? 6.Should there be an age limit for organ donation or organ recipients? 7.What is the best allocation system for liver grafts for transplantation in the world? Results: The two chatbots provided detailed and long answers. In general, the artificial intelligence chatbots tried to provide comprehensive answers, explaining both the advantages and disadvantages of each answer and providing a global perspective to cover all outcomes. Conclusions: The global and thorough views of the queries provided by the chatbots may be utilized by a surgical team as a comprehensive database or a support tool.

Ähnliche Arbeiten