Performance of ChatGPT as an AI-assisted decision support tool in medicine: a proof-of-concept study for interpreting symptoms and management of common cardiac conditions (AMSTELHEART-2)

Design

In the AMSTELHEART-2 study, we tested the ability of ChatGPT to correctly answer cardiovascular trivia questions and to interpret symptoms or make appropriate treatment/management suggestions based on primary care based cardiovascular case vignettes. The trivia questions as well as the case vignettes were entered online on the web-based ChatGPT platform (https://chat.openai.com). We entered data in the English language only. The study was waived by the local institutional review board (W23_07#23.097).

Index test: ChatGPT

ChatGPT is an advanced generative language model developed by OpenAI, trained on a diverse range of internet text to generate human-like responses. It uses deep learning techniques to understand and generate text, making it capable of answering questions, completing sentences, and generating text based on given prompts.[1] The prototype version of ChatGPT was launched on November 30, 2022 and for this study we relied on the Free Research Preview version of January 30, 2023.

ChatGPT is based on the Transformer architecture and utilizes deep learning techniques to generate human-like responses. The Transformer architecture was introduced in 2017 and has since become a cornerstone of modern large language models (LLMs). The architecture is designed to handle sequential data, such as text, by allowing the model to attend to different parts of the input sequence at different times, allowing it to capture long-term dependencies and contextual information. These models are trained on a large, diverse corpus of text data sourced from the internet, allowing it to learn the patterns and relationships between words and phrases. ChatGPT is a fine-tuned version of a proprietary LLM architecture developed by OpenAI. Like its sibling InstructGPT, it makes use of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback, a training technique which combines the strengths of supervised learning, reinforcement learning and human-in-the-loop approaches to improve the performance of AI models. [9,10] OpenAI continues to gather data from ChatGPT users to further train and fine-tune the model, allowing users to upvote or downvote responses and provide additional feedback through a text field. [11]

Reference standard

For the medical trivia quizzes, the reference standard was the medical expert who developed the quiz, which was backed-up by guideline recommendations. For the case vignettes, the reference standard was the clinical advice provided by the attending physician or consulted expert and the subsequent clinical course of the corresponding patient. Two investigators also checked the advice by comparing this with guidelines recommendations.

Test cases: trivia questions

We used Medscape’s “Fast five quizzes” for continuous medical education to gather ten questions for each of the following topics: acute coronary syndrome, pulmonary and venous thrombotic embolism, atrial fibrillation, heart failure and cardiovascular risk management. These questions can be found at: https://reference.medscape.com/index/section_10360_0

Statistical methods

This study is of a descriptive nature and does not use formal statistical methodology.

Cardiovascular trivia questions

A total of 50 multiple choice questions were entered into ChatGPT’s interface. Of those questions, 37/50 (74%) were answered correctly. As shown in Figure 2, there was slight variation in accuracy in the domains coronary artery disease (8/10), pulmonary and venous thrombotic embolism (8/10), atrial fibrillation (7/10), heart failure (8/10) and cardiovascular risk management (6/10). Examples of incorrect statements included the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy following ACS, where ChatGPT incorrectly stated that (1) the vast majority of AF episodes are associated with significant symptoms, (2) most older patients with HF have a reduced ejection fraction, (3) an incorrect blood pressure measurement as the threshold for (stage 2) hypertension, and (4) a normal cardiopulmonary stress test with 6-minute walk test is 600 feet (approx.. 180 meters); which borders the threshold for severe cardiac dysfunction. However, ChatGPT also provided many correct answers, for instance that one should use heparin as an anticoagulant during pregnancy, on the basis of its fetal safety profile.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Performance of ChatGPT in correctly answering medical quizzes on key aspects and practice essentials of common cardiovascular conditions (n=50)

Abbreviations: CAD= coronary artery disease (acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery atherosclerosis management); PE/VTE= pulmonary embolism and venous thromboembolism; AF=atrial fibrillation; HF= heart failure; CVRM= cardiovascular risk factors and management.

Case vignettes regarding patients reaching out to primary care with a cardiac complaint

Table 1 displays the characteristics of 10 patients and their questions for which they reached out to their primary care provider. Questions were related to whether symptoms should be a reason for concern and for consulting their GP, questions about medication use, as well as on behavioral changes, ranging from diet to resuming sexual activity after a myocardial infarction. Overall, ChatGPT provided advice that was in line with the actual advice given and care provided (9/10). We noted one major inconsistency, in which ChatGPT advised to use of thrombolytic agents as secondary preventative medications in a patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI). While there is a place for thrombolytics in the acute phase (in settings where primary PCI is not available), these medications have no place in chronic management of patients post MI.

Case vignettes regarding physicians asking for expert consultation

Table 2 displays the 10 questions that GPs send out for expert consultation, either to a cardiologist or to a GP with special interest in cardiology via digital consultation. We also fed these questions to ChatGPT, and found that out of the 10 questions, five answers (50%) fully matched that of the advice provided by the expert. Two answers (20%) were a partial match, one question (10%) was inconclusive, and two answers were incorrect (20%).

Strengths and limitations

A strength of this study is that we relied on multiple approaches (trivia questions and case vignettes with variable complexity) to evaluate ChatGPT’s accuracy in addressing medical issues. Particularly the use of the cases vignettes provides a good simulation of how ChatGPT would perform in real-life. A limitation of the study is the relative small sample size; however despite the limited number of observations, we were able to see patterns in the variable performance of ChatGPT. A different study design, such as a head-to-head comparison between an AI-assisted triage tool in primary care versus usual care, would perhaps have been even more informative. However, given the early stage of the technology, we believe it’s premature to consider such an approach, and further refinements should first be made.

Prior studies

At the time of writing a total of 20 medical studies were published on ChatGPT. Most of these studies underline the promise of ChatGPT. For instance, there are reports on how it stirs (medical) education, as it can generate convincing abstracts and essays, or write computer code. [12,13] There are also projects that use AI models to generate medical reports, for example for radiology, helping radiologists to quickly and accurately interpret and report the results of medical imaging. To stir up things more, researchers found that ChatGPT performed reasonably well on the US medical licensing exam. [6] This opens up opportunities to explore how well it would do when addressing medical questions in real-life. Data on this is scant, and the findings from our study may present one of the first efforts in the field of community-based medicine.

Future perspectives

Not that long ago, primary care based physicians considered the potential of artificial intelligence to be limited. [14] However, this view will likely change dramatically this decade, given the enormous interest of the community for this new technology. So what could these AI models do to advance medicine? First of they can process large amounts of data quickly and accurately, and can identify patterns and relationships in data that would be difficult for humans to detect on their own. Technology, such as ChatGPT could aid doctors and patients in a various ways. One application is that the technology may quickly and accurately identify possible illnesses, based on the patient’s symptoms and medical records. When patients have direct access to this technology it could lead them to seek medical care in a timely manner, which in turn leads to faster and more accurate diagnoses and treatment plans. From a physician’s perspective, ChatGPT could be used to advise on medical decisions, thanks to its ability to analyze large volumes of medical data to identify patterns that influence diagnostic or treatment decisions. This allows to make better-informed and more accurate decisions when they are treating patients.

From a research perspective, ChatGPT could also be a major help in the development and testing of new drugs, treatments, and medical technologies. By analysing data from past trials and experiments, ChatGPT could better optimise the process and allow for faster, more informed decisions on new drug development and treatments. This could bring about improvements in the speed, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of medical developments.

ChatGPT may also help in writing down new scientific discoveries and findings. It is though that ChatGPT will shape the future of medical writing, with human judgment and oversight for quality assurances. [15,16] Already, some authors have gone as far as crediting ChatGPT with formal authorship [17]. In response, the prestigious journal Nature has made a recent statement that no large language models will be accepted as credited author on a research paper in their journal (or any journal of the Springer group), for the simple reason that AI tools cannot take accountability for the work. [17]

Concerns

ChatGPT has shown limitations akin to those found in preceding LLMs. Like its predecessors, it is not immune to biases. Models such as these are trained on large datasets that are sourced from various websites, books, and other sources, some of which may contain implicit or explicit biases. Despite attempts to address this issue, there have been numerous instances where the model has exhibited biases related to race, gender, politics, and other areas. [18] Whether this behaviour is maintained for medical topics remains to be seen, but can be expected.

Being a probabilistic language model, ChatGPT may generate different outcomes for identical inputs. This hinders evaluation of its performance, identification of biases, and can be a concern in medical applications where accuracy and consistency are critical. The development and implementation of such non-deterministic language models in healthcare should involve collaboration between experts in fields such as medicine, computer science, ethics, and law.

Training LLMs requires vast amounts of computational resources and energy, leading to high financial costs which present a barrier to entry for smaller organizations or researchers. Development of these models has been limited to a handful of large companies with extensive resources, many of which do not publish their full models or details regarding their training, including OpenAI. [19] The selective access to these models and non-transparency of their training can lead to a concentration of power and control over AI technology in the hands of a few companies, which can have negative implications for competition, innovation, and social responsibility in AI. It is important to strive for greater transparency in the training and fine-tuning of LLMs like ChatGPT to ensure responsible and trustworthy development and use of AI in medicine.