Back

Adoption of AI-Powered Chatbots with Large Language Models by Pathologists

Bychkov, A.; Laohawetwanit, T.; Pinto, D. G.

2024-04-09 pathology
10.1101/2024.04.05.24305405 medRxiv
Show abstract

AimsThe study aimed to investigate the adoption and perception of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, particularly those powered by large language models (LLMs), among pathologists worldwide. It explored the extent of their engagement with these technologies, identifying potential impacts on their professional practices. MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted, gathering data from pathologists on their usage and views concerning AI chatbots powered by LLMs. The survey, distributed globally via various digital platforms, included both quantitative and qualitative questions. Statistical analyses were performed to delineate patterns in the adoption and perspectives on these AI tools among the respondents. ResultsOf 215 respondents, 100 (46.5%) reported using LLMs, particularly ChatGPT, for professional purposes, predominantly for information retrieval, proofreading, and academic writing, highlighting a significant time-saving benefit. The adoption varied across demographics, with younger, male pathologists showing higher usage rates. While the technology was mainly utilized for drafting academic materials and programming tasks, users expressed concerns about information accuracy, privacy, and the need for regulatory approval. Despite recognizing occasional inaccuracies, respondents saw potential in advanced AI features, particularly in image analysis and speech-to-text functions. ConclusionsThe survey underscored pathologists cautious yet growing interest in leveraging LLMs to enhance information accessibility, efficiency, and medical education. While the potential benefits are recognized, significant apprehensions about the reliability, ethics, and security associated with these AI tools underscore the need for comprehensive regulation and standardized practices to ensure their responsible use in the medical field.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.