• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

ChatGPT 在胶质母细胞瘤辅助治疗决策中的应用:是否准备好在肿瘤委员会中扮演医生的角色?

ChatGPT in glioma adjuvant therapy decision making: ready to assume the role of a doctor in the tumour board?

机构信息

Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Division of Neurology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.

出版信息

BMJ Health Care Inform. 2023 Jun;30(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100775.

DOI:10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100775
PMID:37399360
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10314415/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate ChatGPT's performance in brain glioma adjuvant therapy decision-making.

METHODS

We randomly selected 10 patients with brain gliomas discussed at our institution's central nervous system tumour board (CNS TB). Patients' clinical status, surgical outcome, textual imaging information and immuno-pathology results were provided to ChatGPT V.3.5 and seven CNS tumour experts. The chatbot was asked to give the adjuvant treatment choice, and the regimen while considering the patient's functional status. The experts rated the artificial intelligence-based recommendations from 0 (complete disagreement) to 10 (complete agreement). An intraclass correlation coefficient agreement (ICC) was used to measure the inter-rater agreement.

RESULTS

Eight patients (80%) met the criteria for glioblastoma and two (20%) were low-grade gliomas. The experts rated the quality of ChatGPT recommendations as poor for diagnosis (median 3, IQR 1-7.8, ICC 0.9, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.0), good for treatment recommendation (7, IQR 6-8, ICC 0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9), good for therapy regimen (7, IQR 4-8, ICC 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.9), moderate for functional status consideration (6, IQR 1-7, ICC 0.7, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.9) and moderate for overall agreement with the recommendations (5, IQR 3-7, ICC 0.7, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.9). No differences were observed between the glioblastomas and low-grade glioma ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

ChatGPT performed poorly in classifying glioma types but was good for adjuvant treatment recommendations as evaluated by CNS TB experts. Even though the ChatGPT lacks the precision to replace expert opinion, it may serve as a promising supplemental tool within a human-in-the-loop approach.

摘要

目的

评估 ChatGPT 在脑胶质瘤辅助治疗决策中的表现。

方法

我们随机选择了我所在机构中枢神经系统肿瘤委员会(CNS TB)讨论的 10 例脑胶质瘤患者。向 ChatGPT V.3.5 和 7 名中枢神经系统肿瘤专家提供了患者的临床状况、手术结果、文本影像学信息和免疫病理学结果。要求聊天机器人根据患者的功能状况给出辅助治疗选择和方案。专家对人工智能推荐的建议进行 0(完全不同意)至 10(完全同意)的评分。采用组内相关系数一致性(ICC)来衡量评分者间的一致性。

结果

8 名患者(80%)符合胶质母细胞瘤标准,2 名(20%)为低级别胶质瘤。专家对 ChatGPT 推荐的诊断质量评价较差(中位数 3,IQR 1-7.8,ICC 0.9,95%CI 0.7 至 1.0),对治疗建议的评价较好(7,IQR 6-8,ICC 0.8,95%CI 0.4 至 0.9),对治疗方案的评价较好(7,IQR 4-8,ICC 0.8,95%CI 0.5 至 0.9),对功能状况考虑的评价为中等(6,IQR 1-7,ICC 0.7,95%CI 0.3 至 0.9),对推荐的总体一致性评价为中等(5,IQR 3-7,ICC 0.7,95%CI 0.3 至 0.9)。胶质母细胞瘤和低级别胶质瘤的评分无差异。

结论

ChatGPT 在分类胶质瘤类型方面表现不佳,但在 CNS TB 专家评估中,对辅助治疗建议表现良好。尽管 ChatGPT 缺乏取代专家意见的精度,但它可以作为一种有前途的、在人机交互方式中的辅助工具。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3a18/10314415/b5d89567df28/bmjhci-2023-100775f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3a18/10314415/24d07984805a/bmjhci-2023-100775f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3a18/10314415/b5d89567df28/bmjhci-2023-100775f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3a18/10314415/24d07984805a/bmjhci-2023-100775f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3a18/10314415/b5d89567df28/bmjhci-2023-100775f02.jpg

相似文献

1
ChatGPT in glioma adjuvant therapy decision making: ready to assume the role of a doctor in the tumour board?ChatGPT 在胶质母细胞瘤辅助治疗决策中的应用:是否准备好在肿瘤委员会中扮演医生的角色?
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2023 Jun;30(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100775.
2
Assessing the Accuracy of Generative Conversational Artificial Intelligence in Debunking Sleep Health Myths: Mixed Methods Comparative Study With Expert Analysis.评估生成式对话人工智能在破除睡眠健康误区方面的准确性:采用专家分析的混合方法比较研究
JMIR Form Res. 2024 Apr 16;8:e55762. doi: 10.2196/55762.
3
Inter-rater agreement in glioma segmentations on longitudinal MRI.磁共振纵向影像上胶质瘤分割的组内一致性。
Neuroimage Clin. 2019;22:101727. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101727. Epub 2019 Feb 22.
4
Evaluating ChatGPT's Ability to Solve Higher-Order Questions on the Competency-Based Medical Education Curriculum in Medical Biochemistry.评估ChatGPT解决医学基础生物化学基于能力的医学教育课程中高阶问题的能力。
Cureus. 2023 Apr 2;15(4):e37023. doi: 10.7759/cureus.37023. eCollection 2023 Apr.
5
Is artificial intelligence ready to replace specialist doctors entirely? ENT specialists vs ChatGPT: 1-0, ball at the center.人工智能是否已经准备好完全取代专科医生?耳鼻喉科专家与 ChatGPT:1-0,球在中场。
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024 Feb;281(2):995-1023. doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-08321-1. Epub 2023 Nov 14.
6
Assessing the accuracy and consistency of ChatGPT in clinical pharmacy management: A preliminary analysis with clinical pharmacy experts worldwide.评估ChatGPT在临床药学管理中的准确性和一致性:与全球临床药学专家的初步分析
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2023 Dec;19(12):1590-1594. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.08.012. Epub 2023 Sep 7.
7
Performance of Large Language Models (ChatGPT, Bing Search, and Google Bard) in Solving Case Vignettes in Physiology.大语言模型(ChatGPT、必应搜索和谷歌巴德)在解决生理学病例 vignettes 中的表现。
Cureus. 2023 Aug 4;15(8):e42972. doi: 10.7759/cureus.42972. eCollection 2023 Aug.
8
Efficacy and safety of artificial intelligence-based large language models for decision making support in herniology: evaluation by experts and general surgeons.基于人工智能的大语言模型在疝病学决策支持中的有效性和安全性:专家和普通外科医生的评估
Khirurgiia (Mosk). 2024(8):6-14. doi: 10.17116/hirurgia20240816.
9
ChatGPT v4 outperforming v3.5 on cancer treatment recommendations in quality, clinical guideline, and expert opinion concordance.ChatGPT v4在癌症治疗建议方面,在质量、临床指南和专家意见一致性上优于v3.5。
Digit Health. 2024 Aug 14;10:20552076241269538. doi: 10.1177/20552076241269538. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.
10
Diagnostic and Management Applications of ChatGPT in Structured Otolaryngology Clinical Scenarios.ChatGPT在结构化耳鼻喉科临床场景中的诊断与管理应用
OTO Open. 2023 Aug 22;7(3):e67. doi: 10.1002/oto2.67. eCollection 2023 Jul-Sep.

引用本文的文献

1
Large Language Models in Neurology Treatment Decision-Making: a Scoping Review.用于神经病学治疗决策的大语言模型:一项范围综述
J Med Syst. 2025 Sep 16;49(1):115. doi: 10.1007/s10916-025-02254-4.
2
Development and evaluation of large-language models (LLMs) for oncology: A scoping review.用于肿瘤学的大语言模型的开发与评估:一项范围综述。
PLOS Digit Health. 2025 Aug 7;4(8):e0000980. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000980. eCollection 2025 Aug.
3
Role of large language models in the multidisciplinary decision-making process for patients with renal cell carcinoma: a pilot experience.

本文引用的文献

1
Benefits, Limits, and Risks of GPT-4 as an AI Chatbot for Medicine. Reply.GPT-4作为医学人工智能聊天机器人的益处、局限性和风险。回复。
N Engl J Med. 2023 Jun 22;388(25):2400. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2305286.
2
ChatGPT: Temptations of Progress.ChatGPT:进步的诱惑。
Am J Bioeth. 2023 Apr;23(4):6-8. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2180110. Epub 2023 Feb 28.
3
ChatGPT: friend or foe?ChatGPT:朋友还是敌人?
大语言模型在肾细胞癌患者多学科决策过程中的作用:一项初步经验。
NPJ Precis Oncol. 2025 Jul 24;9(1):257. doi: 10.1038/s41698-025-01014-4.
4
Large language model integrations in cancer decision-making: a systematic review and meta-analysis.大型语言模型在癌症决策中的应用:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
NPJ Digit Med. 2025 Jul 17;8(1):450. doi: 10.1038/s41746-025-01824-7.
5
Evaluating large language models as an educational tool for meningioma patients: patient and clinician perspectives.将大语言模型评估为脑膜瘤患者的教育工具:患者和临床医生的观点。
Radiat Oncol. 2025 Jun 14;20(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s13014-025-02671-2.
6
The Role of Artificial Intelligence (ChatGPT-4o) in Supporting Tumor Board Decisions.人工智能(ChatGPT-4o)在辅助肿瘤专家委员会决策中的作用
J Clin Med. 2025 May 18;14(10):3535. doi: 10.3390/jcm14103535.
7
Understanding Large Language Models in Healthcare: A Guide to Clinical Implementation and Interpreting Publications.了解医疗保健领域的大语言模型:临床应用及解读出版物指南
Cureus. 2025 Apr 16;17(4):e82397. doi: 10.7759/cureus.82397. eCollection 2025 Apr.
8
Impact of ChatGPT on Diabetes Mellitus Self-Management Among Patients in Saudi Arabia.ChatGPT对沙特阿拉伯患者糖尿病自我管理的影响
Cureus. 2025 Apr 7;17(4):e81855. doi: 10.7759/cureus.81855. eCollection 2025 Apr.
9
Concordance of ChatGPT artificial intelligence decision-making in colorectal cancer multidisciplinary meetings: retrospective study.ChatGPT人工智能在结直肠癌多学科会诊中决策的一致性:回顾性研究
BJS Open. 2025 May 7;9(3). doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraf040.
10
Large Language Models for Chatbot Health Advice Studies: A Systematic Review.用于聊天机器人健康建议研究的大语言模型:一项系统综述。
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Feb 3;8(2):e2457879. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.57879.
Lancet Digit Health. 2023 Mar;5(3):e102. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00023-7. Epub 2023 Feb 6.
4
ChatGPT: five priorities for research.ChatGPT:研究的五个优先事项。
Nature. 2023 Feb;614(7947):224-226. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7.
5
ChatGPT Is Shaping the Future of Medical Writing But Still Requires Human Judgment.ChatGPT正在塑造医学写作的未来,但仍需要人类的判断力。
Radiology. 2023 Apr;307(2):e230171. doi: 10.1148/radiol.230171. Epub 2023 Feb 2.
6
ChatGPT and the Future of Medical Writing.ChatGPT与医学写作的未来。
Radiology. 2023 Apr;307(2):e223312. doi: 10.1148/radiol.223312. Epub 2023 Feb 2.
7
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author.ChatGPT 很有趣,但不是作者。
Science. 2023 Jan 27;379(6630):313. doi: 10.1126/science.adg7879. Epub 2023 Jan 26.
8
Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use.ChatGPT 之类的工具对科学的透明度构成威胁;以下是我们使用这些工具的基本规则。
Nature. 2023 Jan;613(7945):612. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1.
9
Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists.由ChatGPT撰写的摘要愚弄了科学家。
Nature. 2023 Jan;613(7944):423. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7.
10
Are ChatGPT’s knowledge and interpretation ability comparable to those of medical students in Korea for taking a parasitology examination?: a descriptive study.ChatGPT 的知识和解释能力与韩国医学生在寄生虫学考试中的表现相当吗?一项描述性研究。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2023;20:1. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.1. Epub 2023 Jan 11.