The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs) such as the generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) series into the medical field has heralded a new era of data-driven medicine. AI’s capacity for processing vast datasets has enabled the development of predictive models that can forecast patient outcomes with remarkable accuracy. LLMs like GPT and its successors have demonstrated an ability to understand and generate human-like text, facilitating their application in medical documentation, patient interaction, and even in generating diagnostic reports from patient data and imaging findings. Over the past 10 years, the development of AI, LLMs, and GPTs has significantly impacted the field of neurosurgery and spinal care as well [1-5].
Zaidat et al. [6] studied performance of a LLM in the generation of clinical guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery. This study delves into the capabilities of ChatGPT’s models, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0, showcasing their potential to streamline medical processes. They suggest that GPT-3.5’s ability to generate clinically relevant antibiotic use guidelines for spinal surgery is commendable; however, its limitations, such as the inability to discern the most crucial aspects of the guidelines, redundancy, fabrication of citations, and inconsistency, pose significant barriers to its practical application. GPT-4.0, on the other hand, demonstrates a marked improvement in response accuracy and the ability to cite authoritative guidelines, such as those from the North American Spine Society (NASS). This model’s enhanced performance, including a 20% increase in response accuracy and the ability to cite the NASS guideline in over 60% of responses, suggests a more reliable tool for clinicians seeking to integrate AI-generated content into their practice.
However, the study’s findings also highlight the inherent unpredictability of LLM responses and the potential for “artificial hallucination,” where models generate spurious statements without a solid basis in their training data. This phenomenon raises concerns about the ethical implications of using LLMs in clinical settings, particularly regarding patient care and liability. The possibility of LLMs providing inaccurate responses, especially when prompted for medical advice, necessitates a cautious approach to their deployment. We also pay attention to the limitations of the study itself, including the outdated nature of the NASS guidelines, which have not been updated since 2013, and the potential biases and gaps in the medical knowledge contained within the LLMs’ training data. These factors highlight the importance of ongoing research and development to ensure that LLMs are trained on the most recent and relevant medical literature.
From the perspective of a spine surgeon, the advancements from GPT-3.5 to GPT-4.0 are noteworthy. Recent studies have showcased the diverse applications of these AI models, from enhancing clinical outcomes aiding in diagnostics and patient care [7,8]. While LLMs like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 hold significant promise for enhancing clinical practice, their current application should be approached with caution. Clinicians must critically evaluate the information provided by these models and should not rely on them exclusively for clinical recommendations. The future direction of LLM development, including the anticipated release of GPT-4.0 Turbo and domain-specific models trained on medical literature, offers exciting possibilities for the field. However, the medical community must balance this enthusiasm with rigorous research to understand the models’ limitations and to develop evidence-based guidelines for their safe and effective use in clinical settings. As we stand on the beginning of a new era in medical AI, it is imperative that we proceed with both caution and optimism, ensuring that patient care remains at the forefront of our priorities.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
XML Download
Full text via DOI
Full text via PMC
Download Citation
Print
