Back

Exploring the role of Large Language Models in Melanoma: a Systemic Review

Zarfati, M.; Nadkarni, G.; Glicksberg, B. S.; Harats, M.; Greenberger, S.; Klang, E.; Soffer, S.

2024-09-24 dermatology
10.1101/2024.09.23.24314213 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are gaining recognition across various medical fields; however, their specific role in dermatology, particularly in melanoma care, is not well- defined. This systematic review evaluates the current applications, advantages, and challenges associated with the use of LLMs in melanoma care. MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases for studies published up to July 23, 2024, focusing on the application of LLMs in melanoma. Identified studies were categorized into three subgroups: patient education, diagnosis and clinical management. The review process adhered to PRISMA guidelines, and the risk of bias was assessed using the modified QUADAS-2 tool. ResultsNine studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies compared various LLM models, while four focused on ChatGPT. Three studies specifically examined multi-modal LLMs. In the realm of patient education, ChatGPT demonstrated high accuracy, though it often surpassed the recommended readability levels for patient comprehension. In diagnosis applications, multi- modal LLMs like GPT-4V showed capabilities in distinguishing melanoma from benign lesions. However, the diagnostic accuracy varied considerably, influenced by factors such as the quality and diversity of training data, image resolution, and the models ability to integrate clinical context. Regarding management advice, one study found that ChatGPT provided more reliable management advice compared to other LLMs, yet all models lacked depth and specificity for individualized decision-making. ConclusionsLLMs, particularly multimodal models, show potential in improving melanoma care through patient education, diagnosis, and management advice. However, current LLM applications require further refinement and validation to confirm their clinical utility. Future studies should explore fine-tuning these models on large dermatological databases and incorporate expert knowledge.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.9%
2
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.6%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 13%
7.0%
4
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
5
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.0%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.1%
7
British Journal of Ophthalmology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
50% of probability mass above
8
Experimental Dermatology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
9
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
10
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
12
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.1%
14
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
15
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
17
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
18
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
19
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
20
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
21
Journal of Investigative Dermatology
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
22
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
23
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
24
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
26
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
27
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%