Response Generated by Large Language Models Depends on the Structure of the Prompt
Open accessAbstract
Letter to: Assessing the Capability of ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing in Solving Radiology Case Vignettes Indian J Radiol Imaging eFirst DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777746 Assessing the Capability of ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing in Solving Radiology Case Vignette We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the letter written in response to our published article titled “Assessing the capability of ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing in solving radiology case vignettes.”[ 1 ] We thank the authors for their interest in our work and thoughtful questions. The use of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Google Bard, Microsoft Bing, etc., in radiology is indeed a burgeoning field, and we are pleased that our study has sparked further discussion. We would like to address the raised concerns and provide additional information to enhance the clarity of our methodology. The authors asked us about the input prompts. We used the Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists Part 2A pattern questions directly as prompts. There was no prefix (e.g., role definition) or suffix (e.g., customizing response for reader) attached to the prompt. [ Fig. 1 ] present such a question used as a prompt in ChatGPT (GPT3.5; free version). Fig. 1 Example of a prompt we used for getting response from ChatGPT3.5. We appreciate the authors' acknowledgment of the potential influence of prompt engineering on the performance of LLMs. Indeed, the intricacies of prompt design can change the response drastically. We summarized top ten tips in [ Table 1 ] about designing prompts for better output from the LLM. There are several websites that help training prompt engineering.[ 2 ] [ 3 ] Table 1 Ten tips for using prompts for using large language models (LLMs) Tip Brief 1. Clearly define the objective Clearly state the purpose of your inquiry or the type of information you are seeking 2. Ask to play a role You can ask it to play a particular role also. For example, you can provide a prompt like “act like an academic writer” 3. Provide context and relevant information Include background details that can help the model better understand your request. The more details are given to it, more specific would be the response 4. Use specific language Incorporate precise and clear language to guide the model in generating responses. Although LLMs' comprehension is high, sometimes the models may generate undesired text due to ambiguity in input language 5. Experiment with formatting and structure Explore different ways to structure your prompt for improved clarity and specificity 6. Provide example An example of what answer you want helps the model to prepare better response 7. Divide task in smaller segments Putting a complex task would make the response complex. Hence, large task can be divided to smaller fragments for a better output 8. Ask for references Medical literature needs reference. Hence, the LLM may ask to write with reference 9. Chain of thoughts A simple calculation can be mistaken by LLM. Hence, always ask to do a stepwise calculation or generate content step by step 10. Specify text volume The length of text, sentence structure, and readability can be defined. For example, one can prompt to “generate content for a 6th standard student” Note: A guide is also available from https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/prompt-engineering/six-strategies-for-getting-better-results . The authors raise a valid question about any training we used for the chatbots. We confirm that the chatbots, including ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing, were not trained by us. Instead, we utilized pretrained models from the respective platforms to ensure a fair evaluation of their out-of-the-box diagnostic capabilities. However, studies have reported that fine-tuned GPT 3.5 and GPT 4 models have shown better responses.[ 4 ] We hope that these clarifications address the concerns raised by the authors. Thank you for providing this platform for academic discourse. Publication History Article published online: 25 March 2024 © 2024. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [1]Sarangi P K Narayan R K Mohakud S Vats A Sahani D Mondal H Assessing the capability of ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing in solving radiology case vignettes Indian J Radiol Imaging 2024 34 02 276 282 38549897 PMC10972658
- [2]Meskó B Prompt engineering as an important emerging skill for medical professionals: tutorial J Med Internet Res 2023 25 e50638 37792434 PMC10585440
- [3]Giray L Prompt engineering with ChatGPT: a guide for academic writers Ann Biomed Eng 2023 51 12 2629 2633 37284994
- [4]Gamble J L Ferguson D Yuen J Sheikh A Limitations of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in applying Fleischner Society Guidelines to incidental lung nodules Can Assoc Radiol J 2024 75 02 412 416 38146205
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sarangi, P. K., Hui, P., Mondal, H., Kumar Nayak, D. S., Swarup, M. S., Ishan, & Panda, S. (2025) · iRADIOLOGY · doi:10.1002/ird3.70030 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“These models are trained on vast corpora of text and can generate human‐like responses based on input prompts [10].”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Sarangi, P. K., & Mondal, H.
- Affiliations
- All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar (IN)
- Venue
- Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2024-03-25
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 574-575
- ISSN
- 0970-2016 (ISSN-L)
- 0971-3026
- 1998-3808
- PMC
- PMC11188729
- OpenAlex
- W4393165047
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 2.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Indian journal of radiology and imaging - new series/Indian journal of radiology and imaging/Indian Journal of Radiology & Imaging (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- large language models, prompt engineering, ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing, radiology education, AI-assisted learning, clinical reasoning
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