ABSTRACT
Background The potential of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to augment clinical consultation services in clinical microbiology and infectious diseases (ID) is being evaluated.
Methods This cross-sectional study evaluated the performance of four GenAI chatbots (GPT-4.0, a Custom Chatbot based on GPT-4.0, Gemini Pro, and Claude 2) by analysing 40 unique clinical scenarios synthesised from real-life clinical notes. Six specialists and resident trainees from clinical microbiology or ID units conducted randomised, blinded evaluations across four key domains: factual consistency, comprehensiveness, coherence, and medical harmfulness.
Results Analysis of 960 human evaluation entries by six clinicians, covering 160 AI-generated responses, showed that GPT-4.0 produced longer responses than Gemini Pro (p<0·001) and Claude 2 (p<0·001), averaging 577 ± 81·19 words. GPT-4.0 achieved significantly higher mean composite scores compared to Gemini Pro [mean difference (MD)=0·2313, p=0·001] and Claude 2 (MD=0·2021, p=0·006). Specifically, GPT-4.0 outperformed Gemini Pro and Claude 2 in factual consistency (Gemini Pro, p=0·02 Claude 2, p=0·02), comprehensiveness (Gemini Pro, p=0·04; Claude 2, p=0·03), and the absence of medical harm (Gemini Pro, p=0·02; Claude 2, p=0·04). Within-group comparisons showed that specialists consistently awarded higher ratings than resident trainees across all assessed domains (p<0·001) and overall composite scores (p<0·001). Specialists were 9 times more likely to recognise responses with "Fully verified facts" and 5 times more likely to consider responses as "Harmless". However, post-hoc analysis revealed that specialists may inadvertently disregard conflicting or inaccurate information in their assessments, thereby erroneously assigning higher scores.
Interpretation Clinical experience and domain expertise of individual clinicians significantly shaped the interpretation of AI-generated responses. In our analysis, we have demonstrated disconcerting human vulnerabilities in safeguarding against potentially harmful outputs. This fallibility seemed to be most apparent among experienced specialists and domain experts, revealing an unsettling paradox in the human evaluation and oversight of advanced AI systems. Stakeholders and developers must strive to control and mitigate user-specific and cognitive biases, thereby maximising the clinical impact and utility of AI technologies in healthcare delivery.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.01.24303593v1
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the University of Hong Kong and Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster Institutional Review Board (UW 24-108).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. (The full database of scores will be available in subsequent submissions.)
