Abstract
IntroductionAmid clinicians’ challenges in staying updated with medical research, artificial intelligence (AI) tools like the large language model (LLM) ChatGPT could automate appraisal of research quality, saving time and reducing bias. This study compares the proficiency of ChatGPT3 against human evaluation in scoring abstracts to determine its potential as a tool for evidence synthesis.MethodsWe compared ChatGPT’s scoring of implant dentistry abstracts with human evaluators using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts reporting standards checklist, yielding an overall compliance score (OCS). Bland-Altman analysis assessed agreement between human and AI-generated OCS percentages. Additional error analysis included mean difference of OCS subscores, Welch’s t-test and Pearson’s correlation coefficient.ResultsBland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 4.92% (95% CI 0.62%, 0.37%) in OCS between human evaluation and ChatGPT. Error analysis displayed small mean differences in most domains, with the highest in ‘conclusion’ (0.764 (95% CI 0.186, 0.280)) and the lowest in ‘blinding’ (0.034 (95% CI 0.818, 0.895)). The strongest correlations between were in ‘harms’ (r=0.32, p<0.001) and ‘trial registration’ (r=0.34, p=0.002), whereas the weakest were in ‘intervention’ (r=0.02, p<0.001) and ‘objective’ (r=0.06, p<0.001).ConclusionLLMs like ChatGPT can help automate appraisal of medical literature, aiding in the identification of accurately reported research. Possible applications of ChatGPT include integration within medical databases for abstract evaluation. Current limitations include the token limit, restricting its usage to abstracts. As AI technology advances, future versions like GPT4 could offer more reliable, comprehensive evaluations, enhancing the identification of high-quality research and potentially improving patient outcomes.
Funder
Scar Free Foundation
British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons
Welsh Clinical Academic Training Fellowship
Swansea University
Subject
Health Information Management,Health Informatics,Computer Science Applications
Reference10 articles.
1. Benefits, limits, and risks of GPT-4 as an AI Chatbot for medicine;Lee;N Engl J Med,2023
2. Brown TB , Mann B , Ryder N , et al . Language models are few-shot learners. 2020. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165
3. Raffel C , Shazeer N , Roberts A , et al . Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. 2020. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10683
4. Sanmarchi F , Bucci A , Golinelli D . A step-by-step researcher’s guide to the use of an Ai-based transformer in epidemiology: an exploratory analysis of Chatgpt using the Strobe checklist for observational studies. Z Gesundh Wiss [Preprint] 2023. doi:10.1101/2023.02.06.23285514
5. Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials related to implant dentistry;Menne;J Periodontol,2021