BACKGROUND: Reading medical papers is a challenging and time-consuming task for doctors, especially when the papers are long and complex. A tool that can help doctors efficiently process and understand medical papers is needed.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to critically assess and compare the comprehension capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in accurately and efficiently understanding medical research papers using the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist, which provides a standardized framework for evaluating key elements of observational study.
METHODS: The study is a methodological type of research. The study aims to evaluate the understanding capabilities of new generative artificial intelligence tools in medical papers. A novel benchmark pipeline processed 50 medical research papers from PubMed, comparing the answers of 6 LLMs (GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4-0613, GPT-4-1106, PaLM 2, Claude v1, and Gemini Pro) to the benchmark established by expert medical professors. Fifteen questions, derived from the STROBE checklist, assessed LLMs\' understanding of different sections of a research paper.
RESULTS: LLMs exhibited varying performance, with GPT-3.5-Turbo achieving the highest percentage of correct answers (n=3916, 66.9%), followed by GPT-4-1106 (n=3837, 65.6%), PaLM 2 (n=3632, 62.1%), Claude v1 (n=2887, 58.3%), Gemini Pro (n=2878, 49.2%), and GPT-4-0613 (n=2580, 44.1%). Statistical analysis revealed statistically significant differences between LLMs (P<.001), with older models showing inconsistent performance compared to newer versions. LLMs showcased distinct performances for each question across different parts of a scholarly paper-with certain models like PaLM 2 and GPT-3.5 showing remarkable versatility and depth in understanding.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to evaluate the performance of different LLMs in understanding medical papers using the retrieval augmented generation method. The findings highlight the potential of LLMs to enhance medical research by improving efficiency and facilitating evidence-based decision-making. Further research is needed to address limitations such as the influence of question formats, potential biases, and the rapid evolution of LLM models.

BACKGROUND: Although uncertainties exist regarding implementation, artificial intelligence-driven generative language models (GLMs) have enormous potential in medicine. Deployment of GLMs could improve patient comprehension of clinical texts and improve low health literacy.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to evaluate the potential of ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to tailor the complexity of medical information to patient-specific input education level, which is crucial if it is to serve as a tool in addressing low health literacy.
METHODS: Input templates related to 2 prevalent chronic diseases-type II diabetes and hypertension-were designed. Each clinical vignette was adjusted for hypothetical patient education levels to evaluate output personalization. To assess the success of a GLM (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) in tailoring output writing, the readability of pre- and posttransformation outputs were quantified using the Flesch reading ease score (FKRE) and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL).
RESULTS: Responses (n=80) were generated using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across 2 clinical vignettes. For GPT-3.5, FKRE means were 57.75 (SD 4.75), 51.28 (SD 5.14), 32.28 (SD 4.52), and 28.31 (SD 5.22) for 6th grade, 8th grade, high school, and bachelor\'s, respectively; FKGL mean scores were 9.08 (SD 0.90), 10.27 (SD 1.06), 13.4 (SD 0.80), and 13.74 (SD 1.18). GPT-3.5 only aligned with the prespecified education levels at the bachelor\'s degree. Conversely, GPT-4\'s FKRE mean scores were 74.54 (SD 2.6), 71.25 (SD 4.96), 47.61 (SD 6.13), and 13.71 (SD 5.77), with FKGL mean scores of 6.3 (SD 0.73), 6.7 (SD 1.11), 11.09 (SD 1.26), and 17.03 (SD 1.11) for the same respective education levels. GPT-4 met the target readability for all groups except the 6th-grade FKRE average. Both GLMs produced outputs with statistically significant differences (P<.001; 8th grade P<.001; high school P<.001; bachelors P=.003; FKGL: 6th grade P=.001; 8th grade P<.001; high school P<.001; bachelors P<.001) between mean FKRE and FKGL across input education levels.
CONCLUSIONS: GLMs can change the structure and readability of medical text outputs according to input-specified education. However, GLMs categorize input education designation into 3 broad tiers of output readability: easy (6th and 8th grade), medium (high school), and difficult (bachelor\'s degree). This is the first result to suggest that there are broader boundaries in the success of GLMs in output text simplification. Future research must establish how GLMs can reliably personalize medical texts to prespecified education levels to enable a broader impact on health care literacy.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning models, has transformed the landscape of medical technology, especially in the field of diagnosis using imaging and physiological data. In otolaryngology, AI has shown promise in image classification for middle ear diseases. However, existing models often lack patient-specific data and clinical context, limiting their universal applicability. The emergence of GPT-4 Vision (GPT-4V) has enabled a multimodal diagnostic approach, integrating language processing with image analysis.
In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of GPT-4V in diagnosing middle ear diseases by integrating patient-specific data with otoscopic images of the tympanic membrane.
The design of this study was divided into two phases: (1) establishing a model with appropriate prompts and (2) validating the ability of the optimal prompt model to classify images. In total, 305 otoscopic images of 4 middle ear diseases (acute otitis media, middle ear cholesteatoma, chronic otitis media, and otitis media with effusion) were obtained from patients who visited Shinshu University or Jichi Medical University between April 2010 and December 2023. The optimized GPT-4V settings were established using prompts and patients\' data, and the model created with the optimal prompt was used to verify the diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4V on 190 images. To compare the diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4V with that of physicians, 30 clinicians completed a web-based questionnaire consisting of 190 images.
The multimodal AI approach achieved an accuracy of 82.1%, which is superior to that of certified pediatricians at 70.6%, but trailing behind that of otolaryngologists at more than 95%. The model\'s disease-specific accuracy rates were 89.2% for acute otitis media, 76.5% for chronic otitis media, 79.3% for middle ear cholesteatoma, and 85.7% for otitis media with effusion, which highlights the need for disease-specific optimization. Comparisons with physicians revealed promising results, suggesting the potential of GPT-4V to augment clinical decision-making.
Despite its advantages, challenges such as data privacy and ethical considerations must be addressed. Overall, this study underscores the potential of multimodal AI for enhancing diagnostic accuracy and improving patient care in otolaryngology. Further research is warranted to optimize and validate this approach in diverse clinical settings.

In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated the completeness, readability, and syntactic complexity of cardiovascular disease prevention information produced by GPT-4 in response to 4 kinds of prompts.

BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to revolutionize health technology product development by improving coding quality, efficiency, documentation, quality assessment and review, and troubleshooting.
OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the application of a commercially available generative artificial intelligence tool (ChatGPT) to the development of a digital health behavior change intervention designed to support patient engagement in a commercial digital diabetes prevention program.
METHODS: We examined the capacity, advantages, and limitations of ChatGPT to support digital product idea conceptualization, intervention content development, and the software engineering process, including software requirement generation, software design, and code production. In total, 11 evaluators, each with at least 10 years of experience in fields of study ranging from medicine and implementation science to computer science, participated in the output review process (ChatGPT vs human-generated output). All had familiarity or prior exposure to the original personalized automatic messaging system intervention. The evaluators rated the ChatGPT-produced outputs in terms of understandability, usability, novelty, relevance, completeness, and efficiency.
RESULTS: Most metrics received positive scores. We identified that ChatGPT can (1) support developers to achieve high-quality products faster and (2) facilitate nontechnical communication and system understanding between technical and nontechnical team members around the development goal of rapid and easy-to-build computational solutions for medical technologies.
CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT can serve as a usable facilitator for researchers engaging in the software development life cycle, from product conceptualization to feature identification and user story development to code generation.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04049500; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04049500.

BACKGROUND: Large language models such as GPT-4 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4) are being increasingly used in medicine and medical education. However, these models are prone to \"hallucinations\" (ie, outputs that seem convincing while being factually incorrect). It is currently unknown how these errors by large language models relate to the different cognitive levels defined in Bloom\'s taxonomy.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore how GPT-4 performs in terms of Bloom\'s taxonomy using psychosomatic medicine exam questions.
METHODS: We used a large data set of psychosomatic medicine multiple-choice questions (N=307) with real-world results derived from medical school exams. GPT-4 answered the multiple-choice questions using 2 distinct prompt versions: detailed and short. The answers were analyzed using a quantitative approach and a qualitative approach. Focusing on incorrectly answered questions, we categorized reasoning errors according to the hierarchical framework of Bloom\'s taxonomy.
RESULTS: GPT-4\'s performance in answering exam questions yielded a high success rate: 93% (284/307) for the detailed prompt and 91% (278/307) for the short prompt. Questions answered correctly by GPT-4 had a statistically significant higher difficulty than questions answered incorrectly (P=.002 for the detailed prompt and P<.001 for the short prompt). Independent of the prompt, GPT-4\'s lowest exam performance was 78.9% (15/19), thereby always surpassing the \"pass\" threshold. Our qualitative analysis of incorrect answers, based on Bloom\'s taxonomy, showed that errors were primarily in the \"remember\" (29/68) and \"understand\" (23/68) cognitive levels; specific issues arose in recalling details, understanding conceptual relationships, and adhering to standardized guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: GPT-4 demonstrated a remarkable success rate when confronted with psychosomatic medicine multiple-choice exam questions, aligning with previous findings. When evaluated through Bloom\'s taxonomy, our data revealed that GPT-4 occasionally ignored specific facts (remember), provided illogical reasoning (understand), or failed to apply concepts to a new situation (apply). These errors, which were confidently presented, could be attributed to inherent model biases and the tendency to generate outputs that maximize likelihood.

ChatGPT may act as a research assistant to help organize the direction of thinking and summarize research findings. However, few studies have examined the quality, similarity (abstracts being similar to the original one), and accuracy of the abstracts generated by ChatGPT when researchers provide full-text basic research papers.
We aimed to assess the applicability of an artificial intelligence (AI) model in generating abstracts for basic preclinical research.
We selected 30 basic research papers from Nature, Genome Biology, and Biological Psychiatry. Excluding abstracts, we inputted the full text into ChatPDF, an application of a language model based on ChatGPT, and we prompted it to generate abstracts with the same style as used in the original papers. A total of 8 experts were invited to evaluate the quality of these abstracts (based on a Likert scale of 0-10) and identify which abstracts were generated by ChatPDF, using a blind approach. These abstracts were also evaluated for their similarity to the original abstracts and the accuracy of the AI content.
The quality of ChatGPT-generated abstracts was lower than that of the actual abstracts (10-point Likert scale: mean 4.72, SD 2.09 vs mean 8.09, SD 1.03; P<.001). The difference in quality was significant in the unstructured format (mean difference -4.33; 95% CI -4.79 to -3.86; P<.001) but minimal in the 4-subheading structured format (mean difference -2.33; 95% CI -2.79 to -1.86). Among the 30 ChatGPT-generated abstracts, 3 showed wrong conclusions, and 10 were identified as AI content. The mean percentage of similarity between the original and the generated abstracts was not high (2.10%-4.40%). The blinded reviewers achieved a 93% (224/240) accuracy rate in guessing which abstracts were written using ChatGPT.
Using ChatGPT to generate a scientific abstract may not lead to issues of similarity when using real full texts written by humans. However, the quality of the ChatGPT-generated abstracts was suboptimal, and their accuracy was not 100%.

Exploring the generative capabilities of the multimodal GPT-4, our study uncovered significant differences between radiological assessments and automatic evaluation metrics for chest x-ray impression generation and revealed radiological bias.

BACKGROUND: The transition to clinical clerkships can be difficult for medical students, as it requires the synthesis and application of preclinical information into diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. ChatGPT-a generative language model with many medical applications due to its creativity, memory, and accuracy-can help students in this transition.
OBJECTIVE: This paper models ChatGPT 3.5\'s ability to perform interactive clinical simulations and shows this tool\'s benefit to medical education.
METHODS: Simulation starting prompts were refined using ChatGPT 3.5 in Google Chrome. Starting prompts were selected based on assessment format, stepwise progression of simulation events and questions, free-response question type, responsiveness to user inputs, postscenario feedback, and medical accuracy of the feedback. The chosen scenarios were advanced cardiac life support and medical intensive care (for sepsis and pneumonia).
RESULTS: Two starting prompts were chosen. Prompt 1 was developed through 3 test simulations and used successfully in 2 simulations. Prompt 2 was developed through 10 additional test simulations and used successfully in 1 simulation.
CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT is capable of creating simulations for early clinical education. These simulations let students practice novel parts of the clinical curriculum, such as forming independent diagnostic and therapeutic impressions over an entire patient encounter. Furthermore, the simulations can adapt to user inputs in a way that replicates real life more accurately than premade question bank clinical vignettes. Finally, ChatGPT can create potentially unlimited free simulations with specific feedback, which increases access for medical students with lower socioeconomic status and underresourced medical schools. However, no tool is perfect, and ChatGPT is no exception; there are concerns about simulation accuracy and replicability that need to be addressed to further optimize ChatGPT\'s performance as an educational resource.

Deep unsupervised representation learning has recently led to new approaches in the field of Unsupervised Anomaly Detection (UAD) in brain MRI. The main principle behind these works is to learn a model of normal anatomy by learning to compress and recover healthy data. This allows to spot abnormal structures from erroneous recoveries of compressed, potentially anomalous samples. The concept is of great interest to the medical image analysis community as it i) relieves from the need of vast amounts of manually segmented training data-a necessity for and pitfall of current supervised Deep Learning-and ii) theoretically allows to detect arbitrary, even rare pathologies which supervised approaches might fail to find. To date, the experimental design of most works hinders a valid comparison, because i) they are evaluated against different datasets and different pathologies, ii) use different image resolutions and iii) different model architectures with varying complexity. The intent of this work is to establish comparability among recent methods by utilizing a single architecture, a single resolution and the same dataset(s). Besides providing a ranking of the methods, we also try to answer questions like i) how many healthy training subjects are needed to model normality and ii) if the reviewed approaches are also sensitive to domain shift. Further, we identify open challenges and provide suggestions for future community efforts and research directions.