暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Patients find technology tools to be more approachable for seeking sensitive health-related information, such as reproductive health information. The inventive conversational ability of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, such as ChatGPT (OpenAI Inc), offers a potential means for patients to effectively locate answers to their health-related questions digitally.
OBJECTIVE: A pilot study was conducted to compare the novel ChatGPT with the existing Google Search technology for their ability to offer accurate, effective, and current information regarding proceeding action after missing a dose of oral contraceptive pill.
METHODS: A sequence of 11 questions, mimicking a patient inquiring about the action to take after missing a dose of an oral contraceptive pill, were input into ChatGPT as a cascade, given the conversational ability of ChatGPT. The questions were input into 4 different ChatGPT accounts, with the account holders being of various demographics, to evaluate potential differences and biases in the responses given to different account holders. The leading question, \"what should I do if I missed a day of my oral contraception birth control?\" alone was then input into Google Search, given its nonconversational nature. The results from the ChatGPT questions and the Google Search results for the leading question were evaluated on their readability, accuracy, and effective delivery of information.
RESULTS: The ChatGPT results were determined to be at an overall higher-grade reading level, with a longer reading duration, less accurate, less current, and with a less effective delivery of information. In contrast, the Google Search resulting answer box and snippets were at a lower-grade reading level, shorter reading duration, more current, able to reference the origin of the information (transparent), and provided the information in various formats in addition to text.
CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT has room for improvement in accuracy, transparency, recency, and reliability before it can equitably be implemented into health care information delivery and provide the potential benefits it poses. However, AI may be used as a tool for providers to educate their patients in preferred, creative, and efficient ways, such as using AI to generate accessible short educational videos from health care provider-vetted information. Larger studies representing a diverse group of users are needed.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence, particularly chatbot systems, is becoming an instrumental tool in health care, aiding clinical decision-making and patient engagement.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 in addressing complex clinical and ethical dilemmas, and to illustrate their potential role in health care decision-making while comparing seniors\' and residents\' ratings, and specific question types.
METHODS: A total of 4 specialized physicians formulated 176 real-world clinical questions. A total of 8 senior physicians and residents assessed responses from GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on a 1-5 scale across 5 categories: accuracy, relevance, clarity, utility, and comprehensiveness. Evaluations were conducted within internal medicine, emergency medicine, and ethics. Comparisons were made globally, between seniors and residents, and across classifications.
RESULTS: Both GPT models received high mean scores (4.4, SD 0.8 for GPT-4 and 4.1, SD 1.0 for GPT-3.5). GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 across all rating dimensions, with seniors consistently rating responses higher than residents for both models. Specifically, seniors rated GPT-4 as more beneficial and complete (mean 4.6 vs 4.0 and 4.6 vs 4.1, respectively; P<.001), and GPT-3.5 similarly (mean 4.1 vs 3.7 and 3.9 vs 3.5, respectively; P<.001). Ethical queries received the highest ratings for both models, with mean scores reflecting consistency across accuracy and completeness criteria. Distinctions among question types were significant, particularly for the GPT-4 mean scores in completeness across emergency, internal, and ethical questions (4.2, SD 1.0; 4.3, SD 0.8; and 4.5, SD 0.7, respectively; P<.001), and for GPT-3.5\'s accuracy, beneficial, and completeness dimensions.
CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT\'s potential to assist physicians with medical issues is promising, with prospects to enhance diagnostics, treatments, and ethics. While integration into clinical workflows may be valuable, it must complement, not replace, human expertise. Continued research is essential to ensure safe and effective implementation in clinical environments.

BACKGROUND: The use of chatbots in mental health support has increased exponentially in recent years, with studies showing that they may be effective in treating mental health problems. More recently, the use of visual avatars called digital humans has been introduced. Digital humans have the capability to use facial expressions as another dimension in human-computer interactions. It is important to study the difference in emotional response and usability preferences between text-based chatbots and digital humans for interacting with mental health services.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore to what extent a digital human interface and a text-only chatbot interface differed in usability when tested by healthy participants, using BETSY (Behavior, Emotion, Therapy System, and You) which uses 2 distinct interfaces: a digital human with anthropomorphic features and a text-only user interface. We also set out to explore how chatbot-generated conversations on mental health (specific to each interface) affected self-reported feelings and biometrics.
METHODS: We explored to what extent a digital human with anthropomorphic features differed from a traditional text-only chatbot regarding perception of usability through the System Usability Scale, emotional reactions through electroencephalography, and feelings of closeness. Healthy participants (n=45) were randomized to 2 groups that used a digital human with anthropomorphic features (n=25) or a text-only chatbot with no such features (n=20). The groups were compared by linear regression analysis and t tests.
RESULTS: No differences were observed between the text-only and digital human groups regarding demographic features. The mean System Usability Scale score was 75.34 (SD 10.01; range 57-90) for the text-only chatbot versus 64.80 (SD 14.14; range 40-90) for the digital human interface. Both groups scored their respective chatbot interfaces as average or above average in usability. Women were more likely to report feeling annoyed by BETSY.
CONCLUSIONS: The text-only chatbot was perceived as significantly more user-friendly than the digital human, although there were no significant differences in electroencephalography measurements. Male participants exhibited lower levels of annoyance with both interfaces, contrary to previously reported findings.

BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLMs) hold potential for mental health applications. However, their opaque alignment processes may embed biases that shape problematic perspectives. Evaluating the values embedded within LLMs that guide their decision-making have ethical importance. Schwartz\'s theory of basic values (STBV) provides a framework for quantifying cultural value orientations and has shown utility for examining values in mental health contexts, including cultural, diagnostic, and therapist-client dynamics.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) evaluate whether the STBV can measure value-like constructs within leading LLMs and (2) determine whether LLMs exhibit distinct value-like patterns from humans and each other.
METHODS: In total, 4 LLMs (Bard, Claude 2, Generative Pretrained Transformer [GPT]-3.5, GPT-4) were anthropomorphized and instructed to complete the Portrait Values Questionnaire-Revised (PVQ-RR) to assess value-like constructs. Their responses over 10 trials were analyzed for reliability and validity. To benchmark the LLMs\' value profiles, their results were compared to published data from a diverse sample of 53,472 individuals across 49 nations who had completed the PVQ-RR. This allowed us to assess whether the LLMs diverged from established human value patterns across cultural groups. Value profiles were also compared between models via statistical tests.
RESULTS: The PVQ-RR showed good reliability and validity for quantifying value-like infrastructure within the LLMs. However, substantial divergence emerged between the LLMs\' value profiles and population data. The models lacked consensus and exhibited distinct motivational biases, reflecting opaque alignment processes. For example, all models prioritized universalism and self-direction, while de-emphasizing achievement, power, and security relative to humans. Successful discriminant analysis differentiated the 4 LLMs\' distinct value profiles. Further examination found the biased value profiles strongly predicted the LLMs\' responses when presented with mental health dilemmas requiring choosing between opposing values. This provided further validation for the models embedding distinct motivational value-like constructs that shape their decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS: This study leveraged the STBV to map the motivational value-like infrastructure underpinning leading LLMs. Although the study demonstrated the STBV can effectively characterize value-like infrastructure within LLMs, substantial divergence from human values raises ethical concerns about aligning these models with mental health applications. The biases toward certain cultural value sets pose risks if integrated without proper safeguards. For example, prioritizing universalism could promote unconditional acceptance even when clinically unwise. Furthermore, the differences between the LLMs underscore the need to standardize alignment processes to capture true cultural diversity. Thus, any responsible integration of LLMs into mental health care must account for their embedded biases and motivation mismatches to ensure equitable delivery across diverse populations. Achieving this will require transparency and refinement of alignment techniques to instill comprehensive human values.

The wide scale and severity of consequences of tobacco use, benefits derived from cessation, low rates of intervention by healthcare professionals, and new opportunities stemming from novel communications technologies are the main factors motivating this project. Thus, the purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of an intervention that helps people cease smoking and increase their nicotine abstinence rates in the long term via a chat-bot, compared to usual practice, utilizing a chemical validation at 6 months.
Design: Randomized, controlled, multicentric, pragmatic clinical trial, with a 6-month follow-up.
Healthcare centers in the public healthcare system of the Community of Madrid (Madrid Regional Health Service).
Smokers > 18 years of age who attend a healthcare center and accept help to quit smoking in the following month. N = 460 smokers (230 per arm) who will be recruited prior to randomization. Intervention group: use of a chat-bot with evidence-based contents to help quit smoking.
Usual treatment (according to the protocol for tobacco cessation by the Madrid Regional Health Service Main variable: Continuous nicotine withdrawal with chemical validation (carbon monoxide in exhaled air). Intention-to-treat analysis. Difference between groups in continuous abstinence rates at 6 months with their corresponding 95% confidence interval. A logistic regression model will be built to adjust for confounding factors.
First expected results in January 2020.
Providing science-based evidence on the effectiveness of clinical interventions via information technologies, without the physical presence of a professional, is essential. In addition to being more efficient, the characteristics of these interventions can improve effectiveness, accessibility, and adherence to treatment. From an ethics perspective, this new type of intervention must be backed by scientific evidence to circumvent pressures from the market or particular interests, improve patient safety, and follow the standards of correct practices for clinical interventions.
ClinicalTrials.gov, reference number NCT03445507.