Search

Purpose: Patients may seek online information to better understand medical imaging procedures. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of information provided by 2 popular artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots pertaining to common imaging scenarios' risks, benefits, and alternatives. Methods: Fourteen imaging-related scenarios pertaining to computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used. Factors including the use of intravenous contrast, the presence of renal disease, and whether the patient was pregnant were included in the analysis. For each scenario, 3 prompts for outlining the (1) risks, (2) benefits, and (3) alternative imaging choices or potential implications of not using contrast were inputted into ChatGPT and Bard. A grading rubric and a 5-point Likert scale was used by 2 independent reviewers to grade responses. Prompt variability and chatbot context dependency were also assessed. Results: ChatGPT's performance was superior to Bard's in accurately responding to prompts per Likert grading (4.36 ± 0.63 vs 3.25 ± 1.03 seconds, P <.0001). There was substantial agreement between independent reviewer grading for ChatGPT (κ = 0.621) and Bard (κ = 0.684). Response text length was not statistically different between ChatGPT and Bard (2087 ± 256 characters vs 2162 ± 369 characters, P =.24). Response time was longer for ChatGPT (34 ± 2 vs 8 ± 1 seconds, P <.0001). Conclusions: ChatGPT performed superior to Bard at outlining risks, benefits, and alternatives to common imaging scenarios. Generally, context dependency and prompt variability did not change chatbot response content. Due to the lack of detailed scientific reasoning and inability to provide patient-specific information, both AI chatbots have limitations as a patient information resource. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Bard by Google, a direct competitor to ChatGPT, was recently released. Understanding the relative performance of these different chatbots can provide important insight into their strengths and weaknesses as well as which roles they are most suited to fill. In this project, we aimed to compare the most recent version of ChatGPT, ChatGPT-4, and Bard by Google, in their ability to accurately respond to radiology board examination practice questions. Methods: Text-based questions were collected from the 2017-2021 American College of Radiology's Diagnostic Radiology In-Training (DXIT) examinations. ChatGPT-4 and Bard were queried, and their comparative accuracies, response lengths, and response times were documented. Subspecialty-specific performance was analyzed as well. Results: 318 questions were included in our analysis. ChatGPT answered significantly more accurately than Bard (87.11% vs 70.44%, P <.0001). ChatGPT's response length was significantly shorter than Bard's (935.28 ± 440.88 characters vs 1437.52 ± 415.91 characters, P <.0001). ChatGPT's response time was significantly longer than Bard's (26.79 ± 3.27 seconds vs 7.55 ± 1.88 seconds, P <.0001). ChatGPT performed superiorly to Bard in neuroradiology, (100.00% vs 86.21%, P =.03), general & physics (85.39% vs 68.54%, P <.001), nuclear medicine (80.00% vs 56.67%, P <.01), pediatric radiology (93.75% vs 68.75%, P =.03), and ultrasound (100.00% vs 63.64%, P <.001). In the remaining subspecialties, there were no significant differences between ChatGPT and Bard's performance. Conclusion: ChatGPT displayed superior radiology knowledge compared to Bard. While both chatbots display reasonable radiology knowledge, they should be used with conscious knowledge of their limitations and fallibility. Both chatbots provided incorrect or illogical answer explanations and did not always address the educational content of the question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ChatGPT-4 is an upgraded version of an artificial intelligence chatbot. The performance of ChatGPT-4 on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) has not been independently characterized. We aimed to assess the performance of ChatGPT-4 at responding to USMLE Step 1, Step 2CK, and Step 3 practice questions. Practice multiple-choice questions for the USMLE Step 1, Step 2CK, and Step 3 were compiled. Of 376 available questions, 319 (85%) were analyzed by ChatGPT-4 on March 21st, 2023. Our primary outcome was the performance of ChatGPT-4 for the practice USMLE Step 1, Step 2CK, and Step 3 examinations, measured as the proportion of multiple-choice questions answered correctly. Our secondary outcomes were the mean length of questions and responses provided by ChatGPT-4. ChatGPT-4 responded to 319 text-based multiple-choice questions from USMLE practice test material. ChatGPT-4 answered 82 of 93 (88%) questions correctly on USMLE Step 1, 91 of 106 (86%) on Step 2CK, and 108 of 120 (90%) on Step 3. ChatGPT-4 provided explanations for all questions. ChatGPT-4 spent 30.8 ± 11.8 s on average responding to practice questions for USMLE Step 1, 23.0 ± 9.4 s per question for Step 2CK, and 23.1 ± 8.3 s per question for Step 3. The mean length of practice USMLE multiple-choice questions that were answered correctly and incorrectly by ChatGPT-4 was similar (difference = 17.48 characters, SE = 59.75, 95%CI = [-100.09,135.04], t = 0.29, p = 0.77). The mean length of ChatGPT-4's correct responses to practice questions was significantly shorter than the mean length of incorrect responses (difference = 79.58 characters, SE = 35.42, 95%CI = [9.89,149.28], t = 2.25, p = 0.03). ChatGPT-4 answered a remarkably high proportion of practice questions correctly for USMLE examinations. ChatGPT-4 performed substantially better at USMLE practice questions than previous models of the same AI chatbot. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Multidisciplinary cancer conferences consist of regular meetings between diverse specialists working together to share clinical decision making in cancer care. The aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the effect of multidisciplinary cancer conference intervention on the overall survival of patients with cancer. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials for studies published up to July 2023. Studies reporting on the impact of multidisciplinary cancer conferences on patient overall survival were included. A standard random-effects model with the inverse variance–weighted approach was used to estimate the pooled hazard ratio of mortality (multidisciplinary cancer conference vs non–multidisciplinary cancer conference) across studies, and the heterogeneity was assessed by I 2. Publication bias was examined using funnel plots and the Egger test. Results A total of 134 287 patients with cancer from 59 studies were included in our analysis, with 48 467 managed by multidisciplinary cancer conferences and 85 820 in the control arm. Across all cancer types, patients managed by multidisciplinary cancer conferences had an increased overall survival compared with control patients (hazard ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval = 0.62 to 0.71, I 2 = 84%). Median survival time was 30.2 months in the multidisciplinary cancer conference group and 19.0 months in the control group. In subgroup analysis, a positive effect of the multidisciplinary cancer conference intervention on overall survival was found in breast, colorectal, esophageal, hematologic, hepatocellular, lung, pancreatic, and head and neck cancer. Conclusions Overall, our meta-analysis found a significant positive effect of multidisciplinary cancer conferences compared with controls. Further studies are needed to establish nuanced guidelines when optimizing multidisciplinary cancer conference integration for treating diverse patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The majority of the literature focused on whether consent should be extended to the adolescent population arises from themes adapted from American tort law. In contrast to the USA, Ontario does not delineate an age of consent for medical treatment and relying on American guidelines to guide practice in Ontario is problematic. While the literature is saturated with discussions for and against seeking adolescent consent, there are currently no bioethical guidelines on adolescent consent in the province of Ontario. This paper explores adolescent refusal of care and adolescent request for care in opposition to parental wishes. The paper seeks to answer the following questions: What is the difference between an adolescent and an adult in medical decision-making? What are the barriers to seeking adolescent consent? And, can the neurobiological argument be an accurate guide for obtaining adolescent consent? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychedelic compounds have been utilized by humans for centuries for medicinal, religious, and tribal purposes. Clinical trial data starting from the early 2000s and continuing today indicates that psychedelics are a clinically efficacious treatment for a variety of neurological and psychiatric disorders. However, all clinical trials examining these substances have excluded any individual with a past or current history of seizures, leaving a large cohort of epilepsy and non-epilepsy chronic seizure disorder patients without anywhere to turn for psychedelic-assisted therapy. These exclusions were made despite any significant evidence that clinically supervised psychedelic use causes or exacerbates seizures in this population. To date, no clinical trial or preclinical seizure model has demonstrated that psychedelics induce seizures. This review highlights several cases of individuals experiencing seizures or seizure remission following psychedelic use, with the overall trend being that psychedelics are safe for use in a controlled, supervised clinical setting. We also suggest future research directions for this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The safety and effectiveness of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling remains poorly understood for the treatment of epiretinal membrane (ERM). Objectives: Our study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of PPV with and without ILM peeling for ERM. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from January 2000 to January 2023 for comparative studies reporting visual and anatomical outcomes for patients with ERM that received PPV with or without ILM peeling. Primary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at last study observation and change in BCVA from baseline. Secondary outcomes included retinal thickness (RT) at last study observation, change in RT from baseline, risk of ERM recurrence, and adverse events. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Risk of bias of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool of observational studies using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool. The certainty of evidence of outcomes was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. Results: Nineteen studies reporting on 1,291 eyes at baseline were included. PPV with and without ILM peel achieved a similar BCVA at last study observation (p = 0.68) and change in BCVA from baseline (p = 0.79). These findings remained consistent irrespective of whether simultaneous phacoemulsification was performed. PPV with ILM peel achieved a significantly lower incidence of ERM recurrence (risk ratio [RR] = 0.26, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.51], p < 0.0001) and additional surgery (RR = 0.17, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.74], p = 0.02) compared to PPV without ILM peel. Conclusion: PPV with and without ILM peel achieved a similar BCVA at last study observation in ERM patients. Patients treated with PPV and ILM peel also had a reduced risk of ERM recurrence and lower reoperation risk. These conclusions are associated with a moderate certainty of evidence and potential for bias from multiple non-randomized studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the recent policy update by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which allows physicians to override patient wishes for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) without consent. It critically analyzes the ethical implications of this shift, emphasizing the juxtaposition between the legal protections for patient’s Last Wills and the relatively diminished safeguarding of their end-of-life care preferences. The paper highlights the potential for bias in physician decision-making, the risk of reverting to a more paternalistic healthcare model, and the challenge of balancing patient autonomy with medical authority. The study underscores the need for a nuanced approach to healthcare policy that respects patient autonomy while addressing the complexities of end-of-life decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]