AI chatbot

ai 聊天机器人
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:本研究旨在评估人工智能(AI)聊天机器人(ChatGPT-3.5,OpenAI)对全身麻醉下接受手术的成年患者术前焦虑减轻和患者满意度的影响。
    方法:该研究使用单盲,随机对照试验设计。
    方法:在本研究中,将100例成年患者纳入研究,分为两组:对照组50例,患者接受麻醉护士的标准术前信息,干预组50人,患者与ChatGPT互动。主要结果,术前焦虑减轻,使用日本国家特质焦虑量表(STAI)自我报告问卷进行测量。次要终点包括参与者满意度(Q1),对治疗过程的理解(Q2),以及对AI聊天机器人的反应的感知比护士的反应更相关(Q3)。
    结果:在完成研究的85名参与者中,对照组的STAI评分保持稳定,而干预组的下降。混合效应模型显示了时间和群体时间相互作用对STAI得分的显着影响;然而,未观察到主要组效应。次要终点显示混合结果;一些患者发现聊天机器人的反应更相关,而其他人不满意或经历了困难。
    结论:与对照组相比,ChatGPT干预显著降低了术前焦虑;没有观察到STAI评分的总体差异.混合次要端点结果强调需要改进聊天机器人算法和知识库,以提高性能和满意度。人工智能聊天机器人应该补充,而不是取代,人类卫生保健提供者。AI聊天机器人之间的无缝集成和有效沟通,病人,和医疗保健提供者对于优化患者结果至关重要。
    OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot (ChatGPT-3.5, OpenAI) on preoperative anxiety reduction and patient satisfaction in adult patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia.
    METHODS: The study used a single-blind, randomized controlled trial design.
    METHODS: In this study, 100 adult patients were enrolled and divided into two groups: 50 in the control group, in which patients received standard preoperative information from anesthesia nurses, and 50 in the intervention group, in which patients interacted with ChatGPT. The primary outcome, preoperative anxiety reduction, was measured using the Japanese State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) self-report questionnaire. The secondary endpoints included participant satisfaction (Q1), comprehension of the treatment process (Q2), and the perception of the AI chatbot\'s responses as more relevant than those of the nurses (Q3).
    RESULTS: Of the 85 participants who completed the study, the STAI scores in the control group remained stable, whereas those in the intervention group decreased. The mixed-effects model showed significant effects of time and group-time interaction on the STAI scores; however, no main group effect was observed. The secondary endpoints revealed mixed results; some patients found that the chatbot\'s responses were more relevant, whereas others were dissatisfied or experienced difficulties.
    CONCLUSIONS: The ChatGPT intervention significantly reduced preoperative anxiety compared with the control group; however, no overall difference in the STAI scores was observed. The mixed secondary endpoint results highlight the need for refining chatbot algorithms and knowledge bases to improve performance and satisfaction. AI chatbots should complement, rather than replace, human health care providers. Seamless integration and effective communication among AI chatbots, patients, and health care providers are essential for optimizing patient outcomes.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:人工智能(AI)是一个快速发展的领域,具有改变医疗保健和公共卫生各个方面的潜力,包括医学培训。在为五年级医学生开设的“卫生与公共卫生”课程期间,使用AI聊天机器人作为教育支持工具,进行了有关疫苗接种的实用培训课程。在接受疫苗接种的特定培训之前,对学生进行了基于网络的测试,该测试是从意大利国家医学住院医师测试中提取的。完成测试后,AI聊天机器人协助对每个问题进行了严格的更正。
    目的:这项研究的主要目的是确定AI聊天机器人是否可以被视为公共卫生培训的教育支持工具。次要目标是评估不同AI聊天机器人在意大利语复杂的多项选择医学问题上的表现。
    方法:从意大利国家医疗居住权测试中提取了由15个关于疫苗接种的多项选择题组成的测试,使用有针对性的关键词,并通过GoogleForms和不同的AI聊天机器人模型(BingChat,ChatGPT,Chatsonic,谷歌吟游诗人,和YouChat)。考试的纠正是在教室里进行的,专注于对聊天机器人提供的解释进行批判性评估。进行了Mann-WhitneyU测试,以比较医学生和AI聊天机器人的表现。在培训体验结束时匿名收集学生反馈。
    结果:总计,36名医学生和5个AI聊天机器人模型完成了测试。学生在15分中的平均得分为8.22(SD2.65),而AI聊天机器人的平均得分为12.22(SD2.77)。结果表明,两组之间的性能差异具有统计学意义(U=49.5,P<.001),具有较大的效应大小(r=0.69)。当按问题类型划分时(直接,基于场景的,和否定),在直接(P<.001)和基于情景(P<.001)的问题上观察到显著差异,但不是在否定的问题(P=.48)。学生报告对教育经历的满意度很高(7.9/10),表达强烈的重复体验的愿望(7.6/10)。
    结论:这项研究证明了AI聊天机器人在回答与疫苗接种相关的复杂医学问题和提供有价值的教育支持方面的有效性。在直接和基于情景的问题上,他们的表现大大超过了医学生。负责任和批判性地使用人工智能聊天机器人可以增强医学教育,使其成为融入教育系统的一个重要方面。
    BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly developing field with the potential to transform various aspects of health care and public health, including medical training. During the \"Hygiene and Public Health\" course for fifth-year medical students, a practical training session was conducted on vaccination using AI chatbots as an educational supportive tool. Before receiving specific training on vaccination, the students were given a web-based test extracted from the Italian National Medical Residency Test. After completing the test, a critical correction of each question was performed assisted by AI chatbots.
    OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to identify whether AI chatbots can be considered educational support tools for training in public health. The secondary objective was to assess the performance of different AI chatbots on complex multiple-choice medical questions in the Italian language.
    METHODS: A test composed of 15 multiple-choice questions on vaccination was extracted from the Italian National Medical Residency Test using targeted keywords and administered to medical students via Google Forms and to different AI chatbot models (Bing Chat, ChatGPT, Chatsonic, Google Bard, and YouChat). The correction of the test was conducted in the classroom, focusing on the critical evaluation of the explanations provided by the chatbot. A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare the performances of medical students and AI chatbots. Student feedback was collected anonymously at the end of the training experience.
    RESULTS: In total, 36 medical students and 5 AI chatbot models completed the test. The students achieved an average score of 8.22 (SD 2.65) out of 15, while the AI chatbots scored an average of 12.22 (SD 2.77). The results indicated a statistically significant difference in performance between the 2 groups (U=49.5, P<.001), with a large effect size (r=0.69). When divided by question type (direct, scenario-based, and negative), significant differences were observed in direct (P<.001) and scenario-based (P<.001) questions, but not in negative questions (P=.48). The students reported a high level of satisfaction (7.9/10) with the educational experience, expressing a strong desire to repeat the experience (7.6/10).
    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the efficacy of AI chatbots in answering complex medical questions related to vaccination and providing valuable educational support. Their performance significantly surpassed that of medical students in direct and scenario-based questions. The responsible and critical use of AI chatbots can enhance medical education, making it an essential aspect to integrate into the educational system.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景本研究旨在评估ChatGPT的疗效,先进的自然语言处理模型,通过比较和对比不同的指南来源来适应和综合糖尿病酮症酸中毒(DKA)的临床指南。方法我们采用了全面的比较方法,并检查了三个著名的指南来源:加拿大糖尿病临床实践指南专家委员会(2018),初级保健中高血糖的应急管理,联合英国糖尿病协会(JBDS)02成人糖尿病酮症酸中毒的管理。数据提取侧重于诊断标准,危险因素,症状和体征,调查,和治疗建议。我们比较了ChatGPT生成的综合指南,并确定了任何误报或未报告的错误。结果ChatGPT能够生成比较指南的综合表格。然而,多个反复出现的错误,包括误报和未报告错误,被确认,使结果不可靠。此外,在重复报告数据中观察到不一致.该研究强调了使用ChatGPT在没有专家人工干预的情况下适应临床指南的局限性。结论虽然ChatGPT证明了临床指南合成的潜力,多次反复出现的错误和不一致现象的存在凸显了专家人工干预和验证的必要性.未来的研究应该集中在提高ChatGPT的准确性和可靠性上,以及探索其在临床实践和指南开发其他领域的潜在应用。
    Background This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ChatGPT, an advanced natural language processing model, in adapting and synthesizing clinical guidelines for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) by comparing and contrasting different guideline sources. Methodology We employed a comprehensive comparison approach and examined three reputable guideline sources: Diabetes Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee (2018), Emergency Management of Hyperglycaemia in Primary Care, and Joint British Diabetes Societies (JBDS) 02 The Management of Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Adults. Data extraction focused on diagnostic criteria, risk factors, signs and symptoms, investigations, and treatment recommendations. We compared the synthesized guidelines generated by ChatGPT and identified any misreporting or non-reporting errors. Results ChatGPT was capable of generating a comprehensive table comparing the guidelines. However, multiple recurrent errors, including misreporting and non-reporting errors, were identified, rendering the results unreliable. Additionally, inconsistencies were observed in the repeated reporting of data. The study highlights the limitations of using ChatGPT for the adaptation of clinical guidelines without expert human intervention. Conclusions Although ChatGPT demonstrates the potential for the synthesis of clinical guidelines, the presence of multiple recurrent errors and inconsistencies underscores the need for expert human intervention and validation. Future research should focus on improving the accuracy and reliability of ChatGPT, as well as exploring its potential applications in other areas of clinical practice and guideline development.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    人工智能(AI)聊天机器人产生的鉴别诊断的诊断准确性,包括生成预训练变压器3(GPT-3)聊天机器人(ChatGPT-3)是未知的。这项研究评估了ChatGPT-3生成的具有常见主诉的临床小插曲的鉴别诊断列表的准确性。普通内科医师创造了临床病例,正确的诊断,和十个常见主要投诉的五个鉴别诊断。在10个鉴别诊断列表中,ChatGPT-3的正确诊断率为28/30(93.3%)。在五个鉴别诊断列表中,医生的正确诊断率仍然优于ChatGPT-3(98.3%与83.3%,p=0.03)。在最高诊断中,医生的正确诊断率也优于ChatGPT-3(53.3%vs.93.3%,p<0.001)。在ChatGPT-3生成的10个鉴别诊断列表中,医生之间一致的鉴别诊断率为62/88(70.5%)。总之,这项研究表明,ChatGPT-3生成的鉴别诊断列表对于常见主诉的临床病例具有很高的诊断准确性.这表明,像ChatGPT-3这样的人工智能聊天机器人可以为常见的主要投诉生成一个差异化的诊断列表。然而,这些列表的顺序将来可以改进。
    The diagnostic accuracy of differential diagnoses generated by artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, including the generative pretrained transformer 3 (GPT-3) chatbot (ChatGPT-3) is unknown. This study evaluated the accuracy of differential-diagnosis lists generated by ChatGPT-3 for clinical vignettes with common chief complaints. General internal medicine physicians created clinical cases, correct diagnoses, and five differential diagnoses for ten common chief complaints. The rate of correct diagnosis by ChatGPT-3 within the ten differential-diagnosis lists was 28/30 (93.3%). The rate of correct diagnosis by physicians was still superior to that by ChatGPT-3 within the five differential-diagnosis lists (98.3% vs. 83.3%, p = 0.03). The rate of correct diagnosis by physicians was also superior to that by ChatGPT-3 in the top diagnosis (53.3% vs. 93.3%, p < 0.001). The rate of consistent differential diagnoses among physicians within the ten differential-diagnosis lists generated by ChatGPT-3 was 62/88 (70.5%). In summary, this study demonstrates the high diagnostic accuracy of differential-diagnosis lists generated by ChatGPT-3 for clinical cases with common chief complaints. This suggests that AI chatbots such as ChatGPT-3 can generate a well-differentiated diagnosis list for common chief complaints. However, the order of these lists can be improved in the future.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号