The role of artificial intelligence in informed patient consent for radiotherapy treatments-a case report.
AI
Artificial intelligence
Breast cancer
ChatGPT
OpenAI
Journal
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]
ISSN: 1439-099X
Titre abrégé: Strahlenther Onkol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8603469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jan 2024
05 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
21
09
2023
accepted:
03
12
2023
medline:
5
1
2024
pubmed:
5
1
2024
entrez:
5
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Recent advancements in large language models (LMM; e.g., ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, California, USA)) have seen widespread use in various fields, including healthcare. This case study reports on the first use of LMM in a pretreatment discussion and in obtaining informed consent for a radiation oncology treatment. Further, the reproducibility of the replies by ChatGPT 3.5 was analyzed. A breast cancer patient, following legal consultation, engaged in a conversation with ChatGPT 3.5 regarding her radiotherapy treatment. The patient posed questions about side effects, prevention, activities, medications, and late effects. While some answers contained inaccuracies, responses closely resembled doctors' replies. In a final evaluation discussion, the patient, however, stated that she preferred the presence of a physician and expressed concerns about the source of the provided information. The reproducibility was tested in ten iterations. Future guidelines for using such models in radiation oncology should be driven by medical professionals. While artificial intelligence (AI) supports essential tasks, human interaction remains crucial.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38180493
doi: 10.1007/s00066-023-02190-7
pii: 10.1007/s00066-023-02190-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.
Références
N. Chomsky, I. Roberts, and J. Watumull, “The False Promise of ChatGPT,” The New York Times, New York, Mar. 08, 2023.
Grünebaum A, Chervenak J, Pollet SL, Katz A, Chervenak FA (2023) The exciting potential for ChatGPT in obstetrics and gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.03.009
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.03.009
pubmed: 38008150
pmcid: 9822616
Cohen IG (2023) What Should ChatGPT Mean for Bioethics? 1080:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2233357
Ebrahimi B, Howard A, Carlson DJ, Al-Hallaq H (2023) ChatGPT: can a natural language processing tool be trusted for radiation oncology use? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 116(5):977–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.03.075
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.03.075
pubmed: 37037358
Ayers JW et al (2023) Comparing physician and artificial intelligence Chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media forum. JAMA Intern Med 183(6):589–596. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1838
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1838
pubmed: 37115527
Brunt AM et al (2016) Acute skin toxicity associated with a 1-week schedule of whole breast radiotherapy compared with a standard 3‑week regimen delivered in the UK FAST-Forward Trial. Radiother Oncol 120(1):114–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RADONC.2016.02.027
doi: 10.1016/J.RADONC.2016.02.027
pubmed: 27046390
pmcid: 4998960
Brunt AM et al (2020) Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy for 1 week versus 3 weeks (FAST-Forward): 5‑year efficacy and late normal tissue effects results from a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 395(10237):1613–1626. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30932-6
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30932-6.
Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI (2023) Artificial hallucinations in chatGPT: implications in scientific writing. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35179
doi: 10.7759/cureus.35179
pubmed: 37605676
pmcid: 10440097
Emsley R (2023) ChatGPT: these are not hallucinations—they’re fabrications and falsifications. Schizophrenia 9(1):52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-023-00379-4
doi: 10.1038/s41537-023-00379-4
pubmed: 37598184
pmcid: 10439949
Bhattacharyya M, Miller VM, Bhattacharyya D, Miller LE (2023) High rates of fabricated and inaccurate references in ChatGPT-generated medical content. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.39238
doi: 10.7759/cureus.39238
pubmed: 38054119
pmcid: 10694547
Rahsepar AA, Tavakoli N, Kim GHJ, Hassani C, Abtin F, Bedayat A (2023) How AI responds to common lung cancer questions: chatGPT versus Google bard. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230922
doi: 10.1148/radiol.230922
pubmed: 37310252
Dash D et al (2023) Evaluation of GPT‑3.5 and GPT‑4 for supporting real-world information needs in healthcare delivery. http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13714
Statistik Austria (2003) Volkszählung 2001. Statistik Austria, Vienna
Obermeyer Z, Emanuel EJ (2016) Predicting the future—big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. N Engl J Med 375(13):1216–1219. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1606181
doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1606181
pubmed: 27682033
pmcid: 5070532
Langlotz CP (2019) Will artificial intelligence replace radiologists? Radiol Artif Intell 1(3):e190058. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.2019190058
doi: 10.1148/ryai.2019190058
pubmed: 33937794
pmcid: 8017417
Koh D‑M et al (2022) Artificial intelligence and machine learning in cancer imaging. Commun Med 2(1):133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-022-00199-0
doi: 10.1038/s43856-022-00199-0
pubmed: 36310650
pmcid: 9613681
Vandewinckele L et al (2020) Overview of artificial intelligence-based applications in radiotherapy: recommendations for implementation and quality assurance. Radiother Oncol 153:55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.008
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.008
pubmed: 32920005