PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Pitre, Tyler AU - Jassal, Tanvir AU - Talukdar, Jhalok Ronjan AU - Shahab, Mahnoor AU - Ling, Michael AU - Zeraatkar, Dena TI - ChatGPT for assessing risk of bias of randomized trials using the RoB 2.0 tool: A methods study AID - 10.1101/2023.11.19.23298727 DP - 2024 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2023.11.19.23298727 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/29/2023.11.19.23298727.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/29/2023.11.19.23298727.full AB - Background Internationally accepted standards for systematic reviews necessitate assessment of the risk of bias of primary studies. Assessing risk of bias, however, can be time- and resource-intensive. AI-based solutions may increase efficiency and reduce burden.Objective To evaluate the reliability of ChatGPT for performing risk of bias assessments of randomized trials using the revised risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0).Methods We sampled recently published Cochrane systematic reviews of medical interventions (up to October 2023) that included randomized controlled trials and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane-endorsed revised risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0). From each eligible review, we collected data on the risk of bias assessments for the first three reported outcomes. Using ChatGPT-4, we assessed the risk of bias for the same outcomes using three different prompts: a minimal prompt including limited instructions, a maximal prompt with extensive instructions, and an optimized prompt that was designed to yield the best risk of bias judgements. The agreement between ChatGPT’s assessments and those of Cochrane systematic reviewers was quantified using weighted kappa statistics.Results We included 34 systematic reviews with 157 unique trials. We found the agreement between ChatGPT and systematic review authors for assessment of overall risk of bias to be 0.16 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.3) for the maximal ChatGPT prompt, 0.17 (95% CI: 0.02 to 0.32) for the optimized prompt, and 0.11 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.27) for the minimal prompt. For the optimized prompt, agreement ranged between 0.11 (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.33) to 0.29 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.44) across risk of bias domains, with the lowest agreement for the deviations from the intended intervention domain and the highest agreement for the missing outcome data domain.Conclusion Our results suggest that ChatGPT and systematic reviewers only have “slight” to “fair” agreement in risk of bias judgements for randomized trials. ChatGPT is currently unable to reliably assess risk of bias of randomized trials. We advise against using ChatGPT to perform risk of bias assessments. There may be opportunities to use ChatGPT to streamline other aspects of systematic reviews, such as screening of search records or collection of data.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNoneAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData: Available on OSF https://osf.io/aq85p