4.6 Article

Evaluating the Feasibility of ChatGPT in Healthcare: An Analysis of Multiple Clinical and Research Scenarios

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SYSTEMS
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10916-023-01925-4

关键词

Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Medicine; Clinical resaerch

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper aims to discuss the potential applications and limitations of a recently developed large language model (LLM) called ChatGPT in the healthcare field. While AI-based language models like ChatGPT have demonstrated impressive capabilities, there is uncertainty about their performance in real-world scenarios, especially in complex medical contexts. Additionally, ethical concerns regarding the use of ChatGPT in scientific writing and its misuse in medicine and research need to be addressed. The results of the investigation highlight the importance of educating healthcare professionals on the appropriate use and potential pitfalls of AI-based LLMs in medicine.
This paper aims to highlight the potential applications and limits of a large language model (LLM) in healthcare. ChatGPT is a recently developed LLM that was trained on a massive dataset of text for dialogue with users. Although AI-based language models like ChatGPT have demonstrated impressive capabilities, it is uncertain how well they will perform in real-world scenarios, particularly in fields such as medicine where high-level and complex thinking is necessary. Furthermore, while the use of ChatGPT in writing scientific articles and other scientific outputs may have potential benefits, important ethical concerns must also be addressed. Consequently, we investigated the feasibility of ChatGPT in clinical and research scenarios: (1) support of the clinical practice, (2) scientific production, (3) misuse in medicine and research, and (4) reasoning about public health topics. Results indicated that it is important to recognize and promote education on the appropriate use and potential pitfalls of AI-based LLMs in medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据