Cited by 114Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Large language models streamline automated machine learning for clinical studies

Open access
Tayebi Arasteh, Soroosh, Han, Tianyu, Lotfinia, Mahshad, Kuhl, Christiane, Kather, Jakob Nikolas, Truhn, Daniel, Nebelung, Sven·2024·Nature Communications

Abstract

A knowledge gap persists between machine learning (ML) developers (e.g., data scientists) and practitioners (e.g., clinicians), hampering the full utilization of ML for clinical data analysis. We investigated the potential of the ChatGPT Advanced Data Analysis (ADA), an extension of GPT-4, to bridge this gap and perform ML analyses efficiently. Real-world clinical datasets and study details from large trials across various medical specialties were presented to ChatGPT ADA without specific guidance. ChatGPT ADA autonomously developed state-of-the-art ML models based on the original study’s training data to predict clinical outcomes such as cancer development, cancer progression, disease complications, or biomarkers such as pathogenic gene sequences. Following the re-implementation and optimization of the published models, the head-to-head comparison of the ChatGPT ADA-crafted ML models and their respective manually crafted counterparts revealed no significant differences in traditional performance metrics ( p ≥ 0.072). Strikingly, the ChatGPT ADA-crafted ML models often outperformed their counterparts. In conclusion, ChatGPT ADA offers a promising avenue to democratize ML in medicine by simplifying complex data analyses, yet should enhance, not replace, specialized training and resources, to promote broader applications in medical research and practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-024-45879-8

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [21]Ke, G. et al. LightGBM: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30. 3149–3157 (NIPS, 2017).
  2. [26]Lundberg, S. & Lee, S.-I. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. in Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 4768–4777. 10.5555/3295222.3295230 (NIPS, 2017). · DOI
  3. [57]Tayebi Arasteh, S. et al. Large language models streamline automated machine learning for clinical studies, LLMmed, Zenodo10.5281/zenodo.10376161 (2023). PMC10881983 38383555

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tayebi Arasteh, S., Han, T., Lotfinia, M., Kuhl, C., Kather, J. N., Truhn, D., & Nebelung, S.
Affiliations
  • Universitätsklinikum Aachen (DE)
  • University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Han, Tianyu
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2024-02-21
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
1603-1603
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392016947
Cited by
114
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 27
FWCI
10.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen)
Funders
  • European Commission (101057091)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (TR 1700/7‐1, NE2136/3-1, 2136/3-1)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01KD2215B, 031L0312A, 01KX2021)
  • HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme (101057091)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
large language models, ChatGPT, automated machine learning, clinical trials, medical data analysis, GPT-4, clinical outcome prediction, biomarker prediction, tumor progression, model performance comparison
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Language, Neoplasms, Benchmarking

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