A Conversation with an Open Artificial Intelligence Platform on Osteoarthritis of the Hip and Treatment

Seth, Ishith; Rodwell, Aaron; Tso, Reece; Vallés, J. Ruiz; Bulloch, Gabriella; Seth, Nimish

doi:10.26502/josm.511500088

Cited by 19 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This concern underscores a critical aspect of medicine, where precision and accuracy are of paramount importance and highlight the potential risks associated with over-reliance on artificial intelligence for medical writing tasks that require high precision and domain-specific expertise. In this situation, prior research recommends that the final output should still be examined by professionals [35][36][37]. The reason for this lies in the inherent limitations of ChatGPT as a language model.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration and Assessment of ChatGPT in Medical Case Reporting: A Multifaceted Approach

Lin,

Chen,

Lin

et al. 2024

EJIHPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ChatGPT, a large language model, has gained significance in medical writing, particularly in case reports that document the course of an illness. This article explores the integration of ChatGPT and how ChatGPT shapes the process, product, and politics of medical writing in the real world. We conducted a bibliometric analysis on case reports utilizing ChatGPT and indexed in PubMed, encompassing publication information. Furthermore, an in-depth analysis was conducted to categorize the applications and limitations of ChatGPT and the publication trend of application categories. A total of 66 case reports utilizing ChatGPT were identified, with a predominant preference for the online version and English input by the authors. The prevalent application categories were information retrieval and content generation. Notably, this trend remained consistent across different months. Within the subset of 32 articles addressing ChatGPT limitations in case report writing, concerns related to inaccuracies and a lack of clinical context were prominently emphasized. This pointed out the important role of clinical thinking and professional expertise, representing the foundational tenets of medical education, while also accentuating the distinction between physicians and generative artificial intelligence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration and Assessment of ChatGPT in Medical Case Reporting: A Multifaceted Approach

Lin,

Chen,

Lin

et al. 2024

EJIHPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a related study focusing on the information provided by ChatGPT for shoulder impingement syndrome, it was found that the chatbot provided mostly accurate and complete information but sometimes provided controversial risk factors that have yet to be validated, failed to provide important differential diagnoses based on symptoms, was missing information about tests for the condition, and had missing and/or inaccurate information regarding treatment options 10 . In a study assessing ChatGPT responses to queries regarding hip osteoarthritis, the authors found that outputs were largely accurate but were superficial and occasionally missing important references and up-to-date research 18 . Both studies concluded that the use of ChatGPT was limited to providing general and basic information to patients who were using it as a tool to investigate musculoskeletal conditions, and that the chatbot could not provide personalized information or recommendations 10,18 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ChatGPT Is Moderately Accurate in Providing a General Overview of Orthopaedic Conditions

Sparks,

Fasulo,

Windsor

et al. 2024

JBJS Open Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence chatbot capable of providing human-like responses for virtually every possible inquiry. This advancement has provoked public interest regarding the use of ChatGPT, including in health care. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the quantity and accuracy of ChatGPT outputs for general patient-focused inquiries regarding 40 orthopaedic conditions. Methods: For each of the 40 conditions, ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) was prompted with the text “I have been diagnosed with [condition]. Can you tell me more about it?” The numbers of treatment options, risk factors, and symptoms given for each condition were compared with the number in the corresponding American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) OrthoInfo website article for information quantity assessment. For accuracy assessment, an attending orthopaedic surgeon ranked the outputs in the categories of <50%, 50% to 74%, 75% to 99%, and 100% accurate. An orthopaedics sports medicine fellow also independently ranked output accuracy. Results: Compared with the AAOS OrthoInfo website, ChatGPT provided significantly fewer treatment options (mean difference, −2.5; p < 0.001) and risk factors (mean difference, −1.1; p = 0.02) but did not differ in the number of symptoms given (mean difference, −0.5; p = 0.31). The surgical treatment options given by ChatGPT were often nondescript (n = 20 outputs), such as “surgery” as the only operative treatment option. Regarding accuracy, most conditions (26 of 40; 65%) were ranked as mostly (75% to 99%) accurate, with the others (14 of 40; 35%) ranked as moderately (50% to 74%) accurate, by an attending surgeon. Neither surgeon ranked any condition as mostly inaccurate (<50% accurate). Interobserver agreement between accuracy ratings was poor (κ = 0.03; p = 0.30). Conclusions: ChatGPT provides at least moderately accurate outputs for general inquiries of orthopaedic conditions but is lacking in the quantity of information it provides for risk factors and treatment options. Professional organizations, such as the AAOS, are the preferred source of musculoskeletal information when compared with ChatGPT. Clinical Relevance: ChatGPT is an emerging technology with potential roles and limitations in patient education that are still being explored.

show abstract

“…As this pressing issue ignites interest and debate, scholars eagerly anticipate a consensus on the right path forward. We recently published two case studies [3, 4] on orthopaedic topics that demonstrate ChatGPT’s reliability as a “medical researcher” and “scientific writer,” and also address some of the concerns raised in your recent editorial in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® [1]. Our findings identify both the advantages and limitations of ChatGPT in its present state, underlining its potential in certain aspects while accentuating its ethical shortcomings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 82%

“…ChatGPT demonstrated adaptability and personalization capabilities by generating information based on Level III evidence when prompted. However, we found that it also displayed a tendency to fabricate references or inadequately provide them across all studies [3, 4]. Disturbingly, some of ChatGPT's responses contained content that contradicted or was not aligned with the cited research articles.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Letter to the Editor: Editorial: Artificial Intelligence Applications and Scholarly Publication in Orthopaedic Surgery

Seth

Lower

Bulloch

et al. 2023

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Conversation with an Open Artificial Intelligence Platform on Osteoarthritis of the Hip and Treatment

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Integration and Assessment of ChatGPT in Medical Case Reporting: A Multifaceted Approach

Integration and Assessment of ChatGPT in Medical Case Reporting: A Multifaceted Approach

ChatGPT Is Moderately Accurate in Providing a General Overview of Orthopaedic Conditions

Letter to the Editor: Editorial: Artificial Intelligence Applications and Scholarly Publication in Orthopaedic Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About