medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023
Performance of ChatGPT in Diagnosis of Corneal Eye Diseases.
ПрепринтСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Delsoz Mohammad, Madadi Yeganeh, Munir Wuqaas M, Tamm Brendan, Mehravaran Shiva, Soleimani Mohammad, Djalilian Ali, Yousefi Siamak
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Assessing the capabilities of ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-3.5 for diagnosing corneal eye diseases based on case reports and compare with human experts.
METHODS: We randomly selected 20 cases of corneal diseases including corneal infections, dystrophies, degenerations, and injuries from a publicly accessible online database from the University of Iowa. We then input the text of each case description into ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT3.5 and asked for a provisional diagnosis. We finally evaluated the responses based on the correct diagnoses then compared with the diagnoses of three cornea specialists (Human experts) and evaluated interobserver agreements.
RESULTS: The provisional diagnosis accuracy based on ChatGPT-4.0 was 85% (17 correct out of 20 cases) while the accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 was 60% (12 correct cases out of 20). The accuracy of three cornea specialists were 100% (20 cases), 90% (18 cases), and 90% (18 cases), respectively. The interobserver agreement between ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-3.5 was 65% (13 cases) while the interobserver agreement between ChatGPT-4.0 and three cornea specialists were 85% (17 cases), 80% (16 cases), and 75% (15 cases), respectively. However, the interobserver agreement between ChatGPT-3.5 and each of three cornea specialists was 60% (12 cases).
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of ChatGPT-4.0 in diagnosing patients with various corneal conditions was markedly improved than ChatGPT-3.5 and promising for potential clinical integration.
METHODS: We randomly selected 20 cases of corneal diseases including corneal infections, dystrophies, degenerations, and injuries from a publicly accessible online database from the University of Iowa. We then input the text of each case description into ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT3.5 and asked for a provisional diagnosis. We finally evaluated the responses based on the correct diagnoses then compared with the diagnoses of three cornea specialists (Human experts) and evaluated interobserver agreements.
RESULTS: The provisional diagnosis accuracy based on ChatGPT-4.0 was 85% (17 correct out of 20 cases) while the accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 was 60% (12 correct cases out of 20). The accuracy of three cornea specialists were 100% (20 cases), 90% (18 cases), and 90% (18 cases), respectively. The interobserver agreement between ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-3.5 was 65% (13 cases) while the interobserver agreement between ChatGPT-4.0 and three cornea specialists were 85% (17 cases), 80% (16 cases), and 75% (15 cases), respectively. However, the interobserver agreement between ChatGPT-3.5 and each of three cornea specialists was 60% (12 cases).
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of ChatGPT-4.0 in diagnosing patients with various corneal conditions was markedly improved than ChatGPT-3.5 and promising for potential clinical integration.