UNASSIGNED: With their unmatched ability to interpret and engage with human language and context, large language models (LLMs) hint at the potential to bridge AI and human cognitive processes. This review explores the current application of LLMs, such as ChatGPT, in the field of psychiatry.
UNASSIGNED: We followed PRISMA guidelines and searched through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, up until March 2024.
UNASSIGNED: From 771 retrieved articles, we included 16 that directly examine LLMs\' use in psychiatry. LLMs, particularly ChatGPT and GPT-4, showed diverse applications in clinical reasoning, social media, and education within psychiatry. They can assist in diagnosing mental health issues, managing depression, evaluating suicide risk, and supporting education in the field. However, our review also points out their limitations, such as difficulties with complex cases and potential underestimation of suicide risks.
UNASSIGNED: Early research in psychiatry reveals LLMs\' versatile applications, from diagnostic support to educational roles. Given the rapid pace of advancement, future investigations are poised to explore the extent to which these models might redefine traditional roles in mental health care.

BACKGROUND: The world has witnessed increased adoption of large language models (LLMs) in the last year. Although the products developed using LLMs have the potential to solve accessibility and efficiency problems in health care, there is a lack of available guidelines for developing LLMs for health care, especially for medical education.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize the enablers for developing successful LLMs for medical education. We further evaluated the relationships among these identified enablers.
METHODS: A narrative review of the extant literature was first performed to identify the key enablers for LLM development. We additionally gathered the opinions of LLM users to determine the relative importance of these enablers using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP), which is a multicriteria decision-making method. Further, total interpretive structural modeling (TISM) was used to analyze the perspectives of product developers and ascertain the relationships and hierarchy among these enablers. Finally, the cross-impact matrix-based multiplication applied to a classification (MICMAC) approach was used to determine the relative driving and dependence powers of these enablers. A nonprobabilistic purposive sampling approach was used for recruitment of focus groups.
RESULTS: The AHP demonstrated that the most important enabler for LLMs was credibility, with a priority weight of 0.37, followed by accountability (0.27642) and fairness (0.10572). In contrast, usability, with a priority weight of 0.04, showed negligible importance. The results of TISM concurred with the findings of the AHP. The only striking difference between expert perspectives and user preference evaluation was that the product developers indicated that cost has the least importance as a potential enabler. The MICMAC analysis suggested that cost has a strong influence on other enablers. The inputs of the focus group were found to be reliable, with a consistency ratio less than 0.1 (0.084).
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to identify, prioritize, and analyze the relationships of enablers of effective LLMs for medical education. Based on the results of this study, we developed a comprehendible prescriptive framework, named CUC-FATE (Cost, Usability, Credibility, Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Explainability), for evaluating the enablers of LLMs in medical education. The study findings are useful for health care professionals, health technology experts, medical technology regulators, and policy makers.

OBJECTIVE: The rapid expansion of the biomedical literature challenges traditional review methods, especially during outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases when quick action is critical. Our study aims to explore the potential of ChatGPT to automate the biomedical literature review for rapid drug discovery.
METHODS: We introduce a novel automated pipeline helping to identify drugs for a given virus in response to a potential future global health threat. Our approach can be used to select PubMed articles identifying a drug target for the given virus. We tested our approach on two known pathogens: SARS-CoV-2, where the literature is vast, and Nipah, where the literature is sparse. Specifically, a panel of three experts reviewed a set of PubMed articles and labeled them as either describing a drug target for the given virus or not. The same task was given to the automated pipeline and its performance was based on whether it labeled the articles similarly to the human experts. We applied a number of prompt engineering techniques to improve the performance of ChatGPT.
RESULTS: Our best configuration used GPT-4 by OpenAI and achieved an out-of-sample validation performance with accuracy/F1-score/sensitivity/specificity of 92.87%/88.43%/83.38%/97.82% for SARS-CoV-2 and 87.40%/73.90%/74.72%/91.36% for Nipah.
CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the utility of ChatGPT in drug discovery and development and reveal their potential to enable rapid drug target identification during a pandemic-level health emergency.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI), more specifically large language models (LLMs), holds significant potential in revolutionizing emergency care delivery by optimizing clinical workflows and enhancing the quality of decision-making. Although enthusiasm for integrating LLMs into emergency medicine (EM) is growing, the existing literature is characterized by a disparate collection of individual studies, conceptual analyses, and preliminary implementations. Given these complexities and gaps in understanding, a cohesive framework is needed to comprehend the existing body of knowledge on the application of LLMs in EM.
OBJECTIVE: Given the absence of a comprehensive framework for exploring the roles of LLMs in EM, this scoping review aims to systematically map the existing literature on LLMs\' potential applications within EM and identify directions for future research. Addressing this gap will allow for informed advancements in the field.
METHODS: Using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) criteria, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for papers published between January 2018 and August 2023 that discussed LLMs\' use in EM. We excluded other forms of AI. A total of 1994 unique titles and abstracts were screened, and each full-text paper was independently reviewed by 2 authors. Data were abstracted independently, and 5 authors performed a collaborative quantitative and qualitative synthesis of the data.
RESULTS: A total of 43 papers were included. Studies were predominantly from 2022 to 2023 and conducted in the United States and China. We uncovered four major themes: (1) clinical decision-making and support was highlighted as a pivotal area, with LLMs playing a substantial role in enhancing patient care, notably through their application in real-time triage, allowing early recognition of patient urgency; (2) efficiency, workflow, and information management demonstrated the capacity of LLMs to significantly boost operational efficiency, particularly through the automation of patient record synthesis, which could reduce administrative burden and enhance patient-centric care; (3) risks, ethics, and transparency were identified as areas of concern, especially regarding the reliability of LLMs\' outputs, and specific studies highlighted the challenges of ensuring unbiased decision-making amidst potentially flawed training data sets, stressing the importance of thorough validation and ethical oversight; and (4) education and communication possibilities included LLMs\' capacity to enrich medical training, such as through using simulated patient interactions that enhance communication skills.
CONCLUSIONS: LLMs have the potential to fundamentally transform EM, enhancing clinical decision-making, optimizing workflows, and improving patient outcomes. This review sets the stage for future advancements by identifying key research areas: prospective validation of LLM applications, establishing standards for responsible use, understanding provider and patient perceptions, and improving physicians\' AI literacy. Effective integration of LLMs into EM will require collaborative efforts and thorough evaluation to ensure these technologies can be safely and effectively applied.

UNASSIGNED: The launch of the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) in November 2022 has attracted public attention and academic interest to large language models (LLMs), facilitating the emergence of many other innovative LLMs. These LLMs have been applied in various fields, including healthcare. Numerous studies have since been conducted regarding how to employ state-of-the-art LLMs in health-related scenarios to assist patients, doctors, and public health administrators.
UNASSIGNED: This review aims to summarize the applications and concerns of applying conversational LLMs in healthcare and provide an agenda for future research on LLMs in healthcare.
UNASSIGNED: We utilized PubMed, ACM, and IEEE digital libraries as primary sources for this review. We followed the guidance of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRIMSA) to screen and select peer-reviewed research articles that (1) were related to both healthcare applications and conversational LLMs and (2) were published before September 1st, 2023, the date when we started paper collection and screening. We investigated these papers and classified them according to their applications and concerns.
UNASSIGNED: Our search initially identified 820 papers according to targeted keywords, out of which 65 papers met our criteria and were included in the review. The most popular conversational LLM was ChatGPT from OpenAI (60), followed by Bard from Google (1), Large Language Model Meta AI (LLaMA) from Meta (1), and other LLMs (5). These papers were classified into four categories in terms of their applications: 1) summarization, 2) medical knowledge inquiry, 3) prediction, and 4) administration, and four categories of concerns: 1) reliability, 2) bias, 3) privacy, and 4) public acceptability. There are 49 (75%) research papers using LLMs for summarization and/or medical knowledge inquiry, and 58 (89%) research papers expressing concerns about reliability and/or bias. We found that conversational LLMs exhibit promising results in summarization and providing medical knowledge to patients with a relatively high accuracy. However, conversational LLMs like ChatGPT are not able to provide reliable answers to complex health-related tasks that require specialized domain expertise. Additionally, no experiments in our reviewed papers have been conducted to thoughtfully examine how conversational LLMs lead to bias or privacy issues in healthcare research.
UNASSIGNED: Future studies should focus on improving the reliability of LLM applications in complex health-related tasks, as well as investigating the mechanisms of how LLM applications brought bias and privacy issues. Considering the vast accessibility of LLMs, legal, social, and technical efforts are all needed to address concerns about LLMs to promote, improve, and regularize the application of LLMs in healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the reported performances of ChatGPT, identify potential limitations, and explore future directions for its integration, optimization, and ethical considerations in radiology applications.
METHODS: After a comprehensive review of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar databases, a cohort of published studies was identified up to January 1, 2024, utilizing ChatGPT for clinical radiology applications.
RESULTS: Out of 861 studies derived, 44 studies evaluated the performance of ChatGPT; among these, 37 (37/44; 84.1%) demonstrated high performance, and seven (7/44; 15.9%) indicated it had a lower performance in providing information on diagnosis and clinical decision support (6/44; 13.6%) and patient communication and educational content (1/44; 2.3%). Twenty-four (24/44; 54.5%) studies reported the proportion of ChatGPT\'s performance. Among these, 19 (19/24; 79.2%) studies recorded a median accuracy of 70.5%, and in five (5/24; 20.8%) studies, there was a median agreement of 83.6% between ChatGPT outcomes and reference standards [radiologists\' decision or guidelines], generally confirming ChatGPT\'s high accuracy in these studies. Eleven studies compared two recent ChatGPT versions, and in ten (10/11; 90.9%), ChatGPTv4 outperformed v3.5, showing notable enhancements in addressing higher-order thinking questions, better comprehension of radiology terms, and improved accuracy in describing images. Risks and concerns about using ChatGPT included biased responses, limited originality, and the potential for inaccurate information leading to misinformation, hallucinations, improper citations and fake references, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and patient privacy risks.
CONCLUSIONS: Although ChatGPT\'s effectiveness has been shown in 84.1% of radiology studies, there are still multiple pitfalls and limitations to address. It is too soon to confirm its complete proficiency and accuracy, and more extensive multicenter studies utilizing diverse datasets and pre-training techniques are required to verify ChatGPT\'s role in radiology.

UNASSIGNED: ChatGPT has a wide range of applications in the medical field. Therefore, this review aims to define the key issues and provide a comprehensive view of the literature based on the application of ChatGPT in medicine.
UNASSIGNED: This scope follows Arksey and O\'Malley\'s five-stage framework. A comprehensive literature search of publications (30 November 2022 to 16 August 2023) was conducted. Six databases were searched and relevant references were systematically catalogued. Attention was focused on the general characteristics of the articles, their fields of application, and the advantages and disadvantages of using ChatGPT. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis methods were used for data analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 3426 studies, 247 met the criteria for inclusion in this review. The majority of articles (31.17%) were from the United States. Editorials (43.32%) ranked first, followed by experimental studys (11.74%). The potential applications of ChatGPT in medicine are varied, with the largest number of studies (45.75%) exploring clinical practice, including assisting with clinical decision support and providing disease information and medical advice. This was followed by medical education (27.13%) and scientific research (16.19%). Particularly noteworthy in the discipline statistics were radiology, surgery and dentistry at the top of the list. However, ChatGPT in medicine also faces issues of data privacy, inaccuracy and plagiarism.
UNASSIGNED: The application of ChatGPT in medicine focuses on different disciplines and general application scenarios. ChatGPT has a paradoxical nature: it offers significant advantages, but at the same time raises great concerns about its application in healthcare settings. Therefore, it is imperative to develop theoretical frameworks that not only address its widespread use in healthcare but also facilitate a comprehensive assessment. In addition, these frameworks should contribute to the development of strict and effective guidelines and regulatory measures.

Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are increasingly explored in medical domains. However, the absence of standard guidelines for performance evaluation has led to methodological inconsistencies. This study aims to summarize the available evidence on evaluating ChatGPT\'s performance in answering medical questions and provide direction for future research.
An extensive literature search was conducted on June 15, 2023, across ten medical databases. The keyword used was \"ChatGPT,\" without restrictions on publication type, language, or date. Studies evaluating ChatGPT\'s performance in answering medical questions were included. Exclusions comprised review articles, comments, patents, non-medical evaluations of ChatGPT, and preprint studies. Data was extracted on general study characteristics, question sources, conversation processes, assessment metrics, and performance of ChatGPT. An evaluation framework for LLM in medical inquiries was proposed by integrating insights from selected literature. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023456327.
A total of 3520 articles were identified, of which 60 were reviewed and summarized in this paper and 17 were included in the meta-analysis. ChatGPT displayed an overall integrated accuracy of 56 % (95 % CI: 51 %-60 %, I2 = 87 %) in addressing medical queries. However, the studies varied in question resource, question-asking process, and evaluation metrics. As per our proposed evaluation framework, many studies failed to report methodological details, such as the date of inquiry, version of ChatGPT, and inter-rater consistency.
This review reveals ChatGPT\'s potential in addressing medical inquiries, but the heterogeneity of the study design and insufficient reporting might affect the results\' reliability. Our proposed evaluation framework provides insights for the future study design and transparent reporting of LLM in responding to medical questions.

Online patient reviews are crucial in guiding individuals who seek plastic surgery, but artificial chatbots pose a threat of disseminating fake reviews. This study aimed to compare real patient feedback with ChatGPT-generated reviews for the top five US plastic surgery procedures.
Thirty real patient reviews on rhinoplasty, blepharoplasty, facelift, liposuction, and breast augmentation were collected from RealSelf and used as templates for ChatGPT to generate matching patient reviews. Prolific users (n = 30) assessed 150 pairs of reviews to identify human-written and artificial intelligence (AI)-generated reviews. Patient reviews were further assessed using AI content detector software (Copyleaks AI).
Among the 9000 classification tasks, 64.3% and 35.7% of reviews were classified as authentic and fake, respectively. On an average, the author (human versus machine) was correctly identified in 59.6% of cases, and this poor classification performance was consistent across all procedures. Patients with prior aesthetic treatment showed poorer classification performance than those without (p < 0.05). The mean character count in human-written reviews was significantly higher (p < 0.001) that that in AI-generated reviews, with a significant correlation between character count and participants\' accuracy rate (p < 0.001). Emotional timbre of reviews differed significantly with \"happiness\" being more prevalent in human-written reviews (p < 0.001), and \"disappointment\" being more prevalent in AI reviews (p = 0.005). Copyleaks AI correctly classified 96.7% and 69.3% of human-written and ChatGPT-generated reviews, respectively.
ChatGPT convincingly replicates authentic patient reviews, even deceiving commercial AI detection software. Analyzing emotional tone and review length can help differentiate real from fake reviews, underscoring the need to educate both patients and physicians to prevent misinformation and mistrust.