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 11 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.