An official website of the United States government
BackgroundChatGPT showcases exceptional conversational capabilities and extensive cross-disciplinary knowledge. In addition, it can perform multiple roles in a single chat session. This unique multirole-playing feature positions ChatGPT as a promising tool for exploring interdisciplinary subjects. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate ChatGPT’s competency in addressing interdisciplinary inquiries based on a case study exploring the opportunities and challenges of chatbot uses in sports rehabilitation. MethodsWe developed a model termed PanelGPT to assess ChatGPT’s competency in addressing interdisciplinary topics through simulated panel discussions. Taking chatbot uses in sports rehabilitation as an example of an interdisciplinary topic, we prompted ChatGPT through PanelGPT to role-play a physiotherapist, psychologist, nutritionist, artificial intelligence expert, and athlete in a simulated panel discussion. During the simulation, we posed questions to the panel while ChatGPT acted as both the panelists for responses and the moderator for steering the discussion. We performed the simulation using ChatGPT-4 and evaluated the responses by referring to the literature and our human expertise. ResultsBy tackling questions related to chatbot uses in sports rehabilitation with respect to patient education, physiotherapy, physiology, nutrition, and ethical considerations, responses from the ChatGPT-simulated panel discussion reasonably pointed to various benefits such as 24/7 support, personalized advice, automated tracking, and reminders. ChatGPT also correctly emphasized the importance of patient education, and identified challenges such as limited interaction modes, inaccuracies in emotion-related advice, assurance of data privacy and security, transparency in data handling, and fairness in model training. It also stressed that chatbots are to assist as a copilot, not to replace human health care professionals in the rehabilitation process. ConclusionsChatGPT exhibits strong competency in addressing interdisciplinary inquiry by simulating multiple experts from complementary backgrounds, with significant implications in assisting medical education.
more »
« less
Putting ChatGPT’s Medical Advice to the (Turing) Test: Survey Study
Background 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. Objective 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10432156
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- JMIR Medical Education
- Volume:
- 9
- ISSN:
- 2369-3762
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e46939
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Social chatbots are designed to build emotional bonds with users, and thus it is particularly important to design these technologies so as to elicit positive perceptions from users. In the current study, we investigate the impacts transparent explanations of chatbots’ mechanisms have on users’ perceptions of the chatbots. A total of 914 participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. They were randomly assigned to observe conversation between a hypothetical chatbot and user in one of the two-by-two experimental conditions: whether the participants received an explanation about how the chatbot was trained and whether the chatbot was framed as an intelligent entity or a machine. A fifth group, who believed they were observing interactions between two humans, served as a control. Analyses of participants’ responses to post-observation survey indicated that transparency positively affected perceptions of social chatbots by leading users to (1) find the chatbot less creepy, (2) feel greater affinity to the chatbot, and (3) perceive the chatbot as more socially intelligent, thought these effects were small. Importantly, transparency appeared to have a larger effect in increasing the perceived social intelligence among participants with lower prior AI knowledge. These findings have implications for the design of future social chatbots and support the addition of transparency and explanation for chatbot users.more » « less
-
Chakraborty, Pinaki (Ed.)Social chatbots are aimed at building emotional bonds with users, and thus it is particularly important to design these technologies so as to elicit positive perceptions from users. In the current study, we investigate the impacts that transparent explanations of chatbots’ mechanisms have on users’ perceptions of the chatbots. A total of 914 participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. They were randomly assigned to observe conversations between a hypothetical chatbot and a user in one of the two-by-two experimental conditions: whether the participants received an explanation about how the chatbot was trained and whether the chatbot was framed as an intelligent entity or a machine. A fifth group, who believed they were observing interactions between two humans, served as a control. Analyses of participants’ responses to the postobservation survey indicated that transparency positively affected perceptions of social chatbots by leading users to (1) find the chatbot less creepy, (2) feel greater affinity to the chatbot, and (3) perceive the chatbot as more socially intelligent, though these effects were small. Moreover, transparency appeared to have a larger effect on increasing the perceived social intelligence among participants with lower prior AI knowledge. These findings have implications for the design of future social chatbots and support the addition of transparency and explanation for chatbot users.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Background Wearable technology, such as smartwatches, can capture valuable patient-generated data and help inform patient care. Electronic health records provide logical and practical platforms for including such data, but it is necessary to evaluate the way the data are presented and visualized. Objective The aim of this study is to evaluate a graphical interface that displays patients’ health data from smartwatches, mimicking the integration within the environment of electronic health records. Methods A total of 12 health care professionals evaluated a simulated interface using a usability scale questionnaire, testing the clarity of the interface, colors, usefulness of information, navigation, and readability of text. Results The interface was positively received, with 14 out of the 16 questions generating a score of 5 or greater among at least 75% of participants (9/12). On an 8-point Likert scale, the highest rated features of the interface were quick turnaround times (mean score 7.1), readability of the text (mean score 6.8), and use of terminology/abbreviations (mean score 6.75). Conclusions Collaborating with health care professionals to develop and refine a graphical interface for visualizing patients’ health data from smartwatches revealed that the key elements of the interface were acceptable. The implementation of such data from smartwatches and other mobile devices within electronic health records should consider the opinions of key stakeholders as the development of this platform progresses.more » « less
-
ImportanceVirtual patient-physician communications have increased since 2020 and negatively impacted primary care physician (PCP) well-being. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) drafts of patient messages could potentially reduce health care professional (HCP) workload and improve communication quality, but only if the drafts are considered useful. ObjectivesTo assess PCPs’ perceptions of GenAI drafts and to examine linguistic characteristics associated with equity and perceived empathy. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional quality improvement study tested the hypothesis that PCPs’ ratings of GenAI drafts (created using the electronic health record [EHR] standard prompts) would be equivalent to HCP-generated responses on 3 dimensions. The study was conducted at NYU Langone Health using private patient-HCP communications at 3 internal medicine practices piloting GenAI. ExposuresRandomly assigned patient messages coupled with either an HCP message or the draft GenAI response. Main Outcomes and MeasuresPCPs rated responses’ information content quality (eg, relevance), using a Likert scale, communication quality (eg, verbosity), using a Likert scale, and whether they would use the draft or start anew (usable vs unusable). Branching logic further probed for empathy, personalization, and professionalism of responses. Computational linguistics methods assessed content differences in HCP vs GenAI responses, focusing on equity and empathy. ResultsA total of 16 PCPs (8 [50.0%] female) reviewed 344 messages (175 GenAI drafted; 169 HCP drafted). Both GenAI and HCP responses were rated favorably. GenAI responses were rated higher for communication style than HCP responses (mean [SD], 3.70 [1.15] vs 3.38 [1.20];P = .01,U = 12 568.5) but were similar to HCPs on information content (mean [SD], 3.53 [1.26] vs 3.41 [1.27];P = .37;U = 13 981.0) and usable draft proportion (mean [SD], 0.69 [0.48] vs 0.65 [0.47],P = .49,t = −0.6842). Usable GenAI responses were considered more empathetic than usable HCP responses (32 of 86 [37.2%] vs 13 of 79 [16.5%]; difference, 125.5%), possibly attributable to more subjective (mean [SD], 0.54 [0.16] vs 0.31 [0.23];P < .001; difference, 74.2%) and positive (mean [SD] polarity, 0.21 [0.14] vs 0.13 [0.25];P = .02; difference, 61.5%) language; they were also numerically longer (mean [SD] word count, 90.5 [32.0] vs 65.4 [62.6]; difference, 38.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07) and more linguistically complex (mean [SD] score, 125.2 [47.8] vs 95.4 [58.8];P = .002; difference, 31.2%). ConclusionsIn this cross-sectional study of PCP perceptions of an EHR-integrated GenAI chatbot, GenAI was found to communicate information better and with more empathy than HCPs, highlighting its potential to enhance patient-HCP communication. However, GenAI drafts were less readable than HCPs’, a significant concern for patients with low health or English literacy.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.2196/46939
