Bilgin, Gokce Belge

Background The comparison of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) outcomes between patients with the hyperdense middle cerebral artery sign (HMCAS) and non-HMCAS is important to evaluate the impact of this radiological finding on treatment efficacy. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the association between HMCAS and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing thrombectomy, comparing the outcomes over non-HMCAS. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Ovid Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library to identify studies on MT outcomes for M1 occlusions of HMCAS over non-HMCAS. Inclusion criteria encompassed modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and successful recanalization. Using R software version 4.1.2, we calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results The meta-analysis was performed for 5 studies with 724 patients. There was no association found between presence of HMCAS and achieving mRS 0–2 (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.29–1.47; p = .544). Mortality analysis also showed no significant association with presence of HMCAS (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.37–1.65; p = .520). No significant difference in sICH risk (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.24–9.66; p = .646) was found between groups. Recanalization analysis showed a non-significant positive association (OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.67–2.28; p = .501). Heterogeneity was observed in all analyses. Conclusion Our findings showed that there is no statistically significant difference in mRS scores, mortality, sICH, and recanalization success rates between the HMCAS and non-HMCAS groups.

Abstract Background: Many patients use artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots as a rapid source of health information. This raises important questions about the reliability and effectiveness of AI chatbots in delivering accurate and understandable information. Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy, conciseness, and readability of responses from OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard to patient inquiries concerning the novel 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Two experts listed the 12 most commonly asked questions by patients on 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy. These twelve questions were prompted to OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard. AI-generated responses were distributed using an online survey platform (Qualtrics) and blindly rated by eight experts. The performances of the AI chatbots were evaluated and compared across three domains: accuracy, conciseness, and readability. Additionally, potential safety concerns associated with AI-generated answers were also examined. The Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were utilized to compare the performances of AI chatbots. Results: Eight experts participated in the survey, evaluating 12 AI-generated responses across the three domains of accuracy, conciseness, and readability, resulting in 96 assessments (12 responses x 8 experts) for each domain per chatbot. ChatGPT-4 provided more accurate answers than Bard (2.95 ± 0.671 vs 2.73 ± 0.732, p=0.027). Bard's responses had better readability than ChatGPT-4 (2.79 ± 0.408 vs 2.94 ± 0.243, p=0.003). Both ChatGPT-4 and Bard achieved comparable conciseness scores (3.14 ± 0.659 vs 3.11 ± 0.679, p=0.798). Experts categorized the AI-generated responses as incorrect or partially correct at a rate of 16.6% for ChatGPT-4 and 29.1% for Bard. Bard's answers contained significantly more misleading information than those of ChatGPT-4 (p = 0.039). Conclusion: AI chatbots have gained significant attention, and their performance is continuously improving. Nonetheless, these technologies still need further improvements to be considered reliable and credible sources for patients seeking medical information on 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy.