0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Re: ChatGPT encounters multiple opportunities and challenges in neurosurgery

      research-article
      , MD a , , , MD b , , PhD b , , PhD b ,
      International Journal of Surgery (London, England)
      Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Is ChatGPT an Evidence-based Doctor?

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Evaluating large language models on a highly-specialized topic, radiation oncology physics

            Purpose We present the first study to investigate Large Language Models (LLMs) in answering radiation oncology physics questions. Because popular exams like AP Physics, LSAT, and GRE have large test-taker populations and ample test preparation resources in circulation, they may not allow for accurately assessing the true potential of LLMs. This paper proposes evaluating LLMs on a highly-specialized topic, radiation oncology physics, which may be more pertinent to scientific and medical communities in addition to being a valuable benchmark of LLMs. Methods We developed an exam consisting of 100 radiation oncology physics questions based on our expertise. Four LLMs, ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT (GPT-4), Bard (LaMDA), and BLOOMZ, were evaluated against medical physicists and non-experts. The performance of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was further explored by being asked to explain first, then answer. The deductive reasoning capability of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was evaluated using a novel approach (substituting the correct answer with “None of the above choices is the correct answer.”). A majority vote analysis was used to approximate how well each group could score when working together. Results ChatGPT GPT-4 outperformed all other LLMs and medical physicists, on average, with improved accuracy when prompted to explain before answering. ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) showed a high level of consistency in its answer choices across a number of trials, whether correct or incorrect, a characteristic that was not observed in the human test groups or Bard (LaMDA). In evaluating deductive reasoning ability, ChatGPT (GPT-4) demonstrated surprising accuracy, suggesting the potential presence of an emergent ability. Finally, although ChatGPT (GPT-4) performed well overall, its intrinsic properties did not allow for further improvement when scoring based on a majority vote across trials. In contrast, a team of medical physicists were able to greatly outperform ChatGPT (GPT-4) using a majority vote. Conclusion This study suggests a great potential for LLMs to work alongside radiation oncology experts as highly knowledgeable assistants.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Emergency surgery in the era of artificial intelligence: ChatGPT could be the doctor’s right-hand man

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Int J Surg
                Int J Surg
                JS9
                International Journal of Surgery (London, England)
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                1743-9191
                1743-9159
                December 2023
                13 September 2023
                : 109
                : 12
                : 4393-4394
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of pathology,Ningbo Clinical Pathology Diagnosis Center, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province
                [b ]Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Address: Ningbo Clinical Pathology Diagnosis Center, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, People’s Republic of China. Tel: +86 183 13736646. E-mail: qingxinyu0220@ 123456163.com (Q.-x. Yu); Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu City 610041, Sichuan Province, China. Tel.: +86 288 5422444, fax: +86 288 5422451. E-mail: dengxiongliwch@ 123456163.com (D.-x. Li).
                Article
                IJS-D-23-01825 00083
                10.1097/JS9.0000000000000749
                10720816
                37720947
                5a7d323f-5ee3-41e9-a524-ecf426a18a4a
                Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even for commercial purposes, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

                History
                : 24 August 2023
                : 25 August 2023
                Categories
                Correspondence
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Surgery
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article