Cited by 245Topic ModelingSpeech and dialogue systemsNatural Language Processing Techniques

A comprehensive survey of ChatGPT: Advancements, applications, prospects, and challenges

Open access
Nazir, Anam, Wang, Ze·2023·Meta-Radiology

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) especially when combined with Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) represent a groundbreaking in natural language processing. In particular, ChatGPT, a state-of-the-art conversational language model with a user-friendly interface, has garnered substantial attention owing to its remarkable capability for generating human-like responses across a variety of conversational scenarios. This survey offers an overview of ChatGPT, delving into its inception, evolution, and key technology. We summarize the fundamental principles that underpin ChatGPT, encompassing its introduction in conjunction with GPT and LLMs. We also highlight the specific characteristics of GPT models with details of their impressive language understanding and generation capabilities. We then summarize applications of ChatGPT in a few representative domains. In parallel to the many advantages that ChatGPT can provide, we discuss the limitations and challenges along with potential mitigation strategies. Despite various controversial arguments and ethical concerns, ChatGPT has drawn significant attention from research industries and academia in a very short period. The survey concludes with an envision of promising avenues for future research in the field of ChatGPT. It is worth noting that knowing and addressing the challenges faced by ChatGPT will mount the way for more reliable and trustworthy conversational agents in the years to come.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.metrad.2023.100022

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most prior research in this field speculates on high-level concerns such as inaccuracy and real-world impacts, but rarely articulates concrete criteria for when and why LLMs should or should not provide professional advice to users.

    “Most prior research in this field speculates on high-level concerns such as inaccuracy and real-world impacts [43, 44, 54, 86, 93]. However, these studies rarely articulate concrete criteria for when and why LLMs should or should not provide professional advice to users.”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nazir, A., & Wang, Z.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author
Wang, Ze
Venue
Meta-Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-09
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
100022
ISSN
2950-1628 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4387425757
Cited by
245
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 4
FWCI
23.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Meta-Radiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01AG060054, 1UL1TR003098, R01AG070227, R01EB031080-01A1, P41EB029460-01A1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, generative pre-trained transformer, chatbots, natural language generation, natural language understanding, ethical considerations, trustworthy AI

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review