Cited by 22Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in Healthcare

ChatGPT and medicine: a potential threat to science or a step towards the future?

Open access
Souza, Lucas Lacerda de, Fonseca, Felipe Paiva, Martins, Manoela Domingues, de Almeida, Oslei Paes, Pontes, Helder Antônio Rebelo, Coracin, Fábio Luiz, Lopes, Márcio Ajudarte, Khurram, Syed Ali +3 more·2023·Journal of Medical Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Abstract: Chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), a large language model based on the GPT-3.5 architecture, has the potential to revolutionize the field of medicine. As a machine learning tool, ChatGPT has the ability to analyze vast amounts of medical data and provide clinicians with accurate and relevant information to improve patient care. One of the key advantages of ChatGPT is its ability to assist in evidence-based medicine, as it can analyze large datasets of clinical trials and other medical studies to help identify the most effective treatments for specific conditions. ChatGPT can also aid in medical education by providing a personalized learning experience for medical students and professionals. It can assist in answering clinical questions, providing quick access to medical knowledge, and assisting in diagnosis and treatment decisions. Furthermore, ChatGPT has the potential to improve patient outcomes by reducing diagnostic errors, improving treatment plans, and enhancing patient communication. These guidelines will serve as foundational pillars for ensuring that the integration of ChatGPT into medical practices remains safe, transparent, and serves the best interests of all stakeholders involved. In conclusion, ChatGPT has the potential to transform medicine by providing clinicians with advanced tools for data analysis, assisting in diagnosis and treatment decisions, and improving patient outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21037/jmai-23-70

Cites

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?

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Souza, L. L. D., Fonseca, F. P., Martins, M. D., de Almeida, O. P., Pontes, H. A. R., Coracin, F. L., Lopes, M. A., Khurram, S. A., Santos-Silva, A. R., Hagag, A., & Vargas, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR)
  • Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR)
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
  • Hospital de Câncer de Barretos (BR)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Benha University (EG)
Corresponding author
Souza, Lucas Lacerda de
Venue
Journal of Medical Artificial Intelligence
Published
2023-10
Volume
6
Pages
19-19
ISSN
2617-2496 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388156928
Cited by
22
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
Journal of Medical Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, artificial intelligence in healthcare, evidence-based medicine, clinical decision support, medical education, medical question answering, diagnostic errors, patient communication, medical data analysis, clinical trials

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