Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Putting ChatGPT’s Medical Advice to the (Turing) Test: Survey Study (Preprint)
3
Zitationen
3
Autoren
2023
Jahr
Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Chatbots are being piloted to draft responses to patient questions, but patients’ ability to distinguish between provider and chatbot responses and patients’ trust in chatbots’ functions are not well established. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) or a similar artificial intelligence–based chatbot for patient-provider communication. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> A survey study was conducted in January 2023. Ten representative, nonadministrative patient-provider interactions were extracted from the electronic health record. Patients’ questions were entered into ChatGPT with a request for the chatbot to respond using approximately the same word count as the human provider’s response. In the survey, each patient question was followed by a provider- or ChatGPT-generated response. Participants were informed that 5 responses were provider generated and 5 were chatbot generated. Participants were asked—and incentivized financially—to correctly identify the response source. Participants were also asked about their trust in chatbots’ functions in patient-provider communication, using a Likert scale from 1-5. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> A US-representative sample of 430 study participants aged 18 and older were recruited on Prolific, a crowdsourcing platform for academic studies. In all, 426 participants filled out the full survey. After removing participants who spent less than 3 minutes on the survey, 392 respondents remained. Overall, 53.3% (209/392) of respondents analyzed were women, and the average age was 47.1 (range 18-91) years. The correct classification of responses ranged between 49% (192/392) to 85.7% (336/392) for different questions. On average, chatbot responses were identified correctly in 65.5% (1284/1960) of the cases, and human provider responses were identified correctly in 65.1% (1276/1960) of the cases. On average, responses toward patients’ trust in chatbots’ functions were weakly positive (mean Likert score 3.4 out of 5), with lower trust as the health-related complexity of the task in the questions increased. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> ChatGPT responses to patient questions were weakly distinguishable from provider responses. Laypeople appear to trust the use of chatbots to answer lower-risk health questions. It is important to continue studying patient-chatbot interaction as chatbots move from administrative to more clinical roles in health care. </sec>
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.393 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.259 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.688 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.781 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.502 Zit.