Appraisal of AI-generated dermatology literature reviews

被引:0
|
作者
Passby, Lauren [1 ]
Madhwapathi, Vidya [2 ]
Tso, Simon [3 ]
Wernham, Aaron [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Birmingham NHS Fdn Trust, Solihull, England
[2] Univ Hosp Birmingham NHS Fdn Trust, Birmingham, England
[3] South Warwickshire NHS Fdn Trust, Jephson Dermatol Ctr, Warwick, England
[4] Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust, Walsall, England
关键词
D O I
10.1111/jdv.20237
中图分类号
R75 [皮肤病学与性病学];
学科分类号
100206 ;
摘要
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have the potential to revolutionize many facets of medicine and medical sciences research. Numerous AI tools have been developed and are in continuous states of iterative improvement in their functionality. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the performance of three AI tools: The Literature, Microsoft's Copilot and Google's Gemini in performing literature reviews on a range of dermatology topics. Methods: Each tool was asked to write a literature review on five topics. The topics chosen have recently had peer-reviewed systematic reviews published. The outputs of each took were graded on their evidence and analysis, conclusions and references on a 5-point Likert scale by three dermatologists who are working in clinical practice, have completed the UK dermatology postgraduate training examination and are partaking in continued professional development. Results: Across all five topics chosen, the literature reviews written by Gemini scored the highest. The mean score for Gemini for each review was 10.53, significantly higher than the mean scores achieved by The Literature (7.73) and Copilot (7.4) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This paper shows that AI-generated literature reviews can provide real-time summaries of medical literature across a range of dermatology topics, but limitations to their comprehensiveness and accuracy are apparent.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Not a generative AI-generated Editorial
    不详
    [J]. NATURE CANCER, 2023, 4 (02) : 151 - 152
  • [2] AI-Generated Clinical Summaries
    Chen, Charlaine
    Thornton, Joseph E.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2024, 331 (22): : 1967 - 1968
  • [3] An evaluation of AI generated literature reviews in musculoskeletal radiology
    Jenko, N.
    Ariyaratne, S.
    Jeys, L.
    Evans, S.
    Iyengar, K. P.
    Botchu, R.
    [J]. SURGEON-JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL COLLEGES OF SURGEONS OF EDINBURGH AND IRELAND, 2024, 22 (03): : 194 - 197
  • [4] AI generated literature reviews in musculoskeletal radiology: Comment
    Daungsupawong, Hinpetch
    Wiwanitkit, Viroj
    [J]. SURGEON-JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL COLLEGES OF SURGEONS OF EDINBURGH AND IRELAND, 2024, 22 (02):
  • [5] Unnatural Images: On AI-Generated Photographs
    Wasielewski, Amanda
    [J]. CRITICAL INQUIRY, 2024, 51 (01) : 1 - 29
  • [6] Avoid patenting AI-generated inventions
    Gervais, Daniel
    [J]. NATURE, 2023, 622 (7981) : 31 - 31
  • [7] Online Detection of AI-Generated Images
    Epstein, David C.
    Jain, Ishan
    Wang, Oliver
    Zhang, Richard
    [J]. 2023 IEEE/CVF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER VISION WORKSHOPS, ICCVW, 2023, : 382 - 392
  • [8] How persuasive is AI-generated propaganda?
    Goldstein, Josh A.
    Chao, Jason
    Grossman, Shelby
    Stamos, Alex
    Tomz, Michael
    [J]. PNAS NEXUS, 2024, 3 (02):
  • [9] Caution with AI-generated content in biomedicine
    Zhavoronkov, Alex
    [J]. NATURE MEDICINE, 2023, 29 (03) : 532 - 532
  • [10] Caution with AI-generated content in biomedicine
    Alex Zhavoronkov
    [J]. Nature Medicine, 2023, 29 : 532 - 532