Putting ChatGPT's Medical Advice to the (Turing) Test
Nov, O.; Singh, N.; Mann, D. M.
Show abstract
ImportanceChatbots could play a role in answering patient questions, but patients ability to distinguish between provider and chatbot responses, and patients trust in chatbots functions are not well established. ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of using ChatGPT or a similar AI-based chatbot for patient-provider communication. DesignSurvey in January 2023 SettingSurvey ParticipantsA US representative sample of 430 study participants aged 18 and above was recruited on Prolific, a crowdsourcing platform for academic studies. 426 participants filled out the full survey. After removing participants who spent less than 3 minutes on the survey, 392 respondents remained. 53.2% of respondents analyzed were women; their average age was 47.1. Exposure(s)Ten representative non-administrative patient-provider interactions were extracted from the EHR. Patients questions were placed in ChatGPT with a request for the chatbot to respond using approximately the same word count as the human providers response. In the survey, each patients question was followed by a provider- or ChatGPT-generated response. Participants were informed that five responses were provider-generated and five 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 of 1-5. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)Main outcome: Proportion of responses correctly classified as provider- vs chatbot-generated. Secondary outcomes: Average and standard deviation of responses to trust questions. ResultsThe correct classification of responses ranged between 49.0% to 85.7% for different questions. On average, chatbot responses were correctly identified 65.5% of the time, and provider responses were correctly distinguished 65.1% of the time. On average, responses toward patients trust in chatbots functions were weakly positive (mean Likert score: 3.4), with lower trust as the health-related complexity of the task in questions increased. Conclusions and RelevanceChatGPT 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 healthcare. Conclusions and RelevanceAI in Medicine; ChatGPT; Generative AI; Healthcare AI; Turing Test;
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and preliminary testing of Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL): A framework for healthcare delivery organizations to mitigate the risk of AI solutions worsening health inequities 95%
- Evaluating Anti-LGBTQIA+ Medical Bias in Large Language Models 94%
- Harnessing the Open Access Version of ChatGPT for Enhanced Clinical Opinions 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 94%
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 94%
- User Testing of a Diagnostic Decision Support System with Machine-assisted Chart Review to Facilitate Clinical Genomic Diagnosis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Understanding how the design and implementation of Online Consultations influence primary care outcomes: Systematic review of evidence with recommendations for designers, providers, and researchers 95%
- Improving Patient Engagement in Phase 2 Clinical Trials with a Trial-specific Patient Decision Aid (tPDA): A Development and Usability Study 94%
- Using a Multilingual AI Care Agent to Reduce Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Higher FIT Test Adoption Among Spanish-Speaking Patients 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.