Forte, Antonio Jorge

In postoperative care, patient education and follow-up are pivotal for enhancing the quality of care and satisfaction. Artificial intelligence virtual assistants (AIVA) and large language models (LLMs) like Google BARD and ChatGPT-4 offer avenues for addressing patient queries using natural language processing (NLP) techniques. However, the accuracy and appropriateness of the information vary across these platforms, necessitating a comparative study to evaluate their efficacy in this domain. We conducted a study comparing AIVA (using Google Dialogflow) with ChatGPT-4 and Google BARD, assessing the accuracy, knowledge gap, and response appropriateness. AIVA demonstrated superior performance, with significantly higher accuracy (mean: 0.9) and lower knowledge gap (mean: 0.1) compared to BARD and ChatGPT-4. Additionally, AIVA’s responses received higher Likert scores for appropriateness. Our findings suggest that specialized AI tools like AIVA are more effective in delivering precise and contextually relevant information for postoperative care compared to general-purpose LLMs. While ChatGPT-4 shows promise, its performance varies, particularly in verbal interactions. This underscores the importance of tailored AI solutions in healthcare, where accuracy and clarity are paramount. Our study highlights the necessity for further research and the development of customized AI solutions to address specific medical contexts and improve patient outcomes.

This study aims to explore how artificial intelligence can help ease the burden on caregivers, filling a gap in current research and healthcare practices due to the growing challenge of an aging population and increased reliance on informal caregivers. We conducted a search with Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science, focusing on AI and caregiving. Our inclusion criteria were studies where AI supports informal caregivers, excluding those solely for data collection. Adhering to PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we eliminated duplicates and screened for relevance. From 947 initially identified articles, 10 met our criteria, focusing on AI’s role in aiding informal caregivers. These studies, conducted between 2012 and 2023, were globally distributed, with 80% employing machine learning. Validation methods varied, with Hold-Out being the most frequent. Metrics across studies revealed accuracies ranging from 71.60% to 99.33%. Specific methods, like SCUT in conjunction with NNs and LibSVM, showcased accuracy between 93.42% and 95.36% as well as F-measures spanning 93.30% to 95.41%. AUC values indicated model performance variability, ranging from 0.50 to 0.85 in select models. Our review highlights AI’s role in aiding informal caregivers, showing promising results despite different approaches. AI tools provide smart, adaptive support, improving caregivers’ effectiveness and well-being.

Background: OpenAI’s ChatGPT (San Francisco, CA, USA) and Google’s Gemini (Mountain View, CA, USA) are two large language models that show promise in improving and expediting medical decision making in hand surgery. Evaluating the applications of these models within the field of hand surgery is warranted. This study aims to evaluate ChatGPT-4 and Gemini in classifying hand injuries and recommending treatment. Methods: Gemini and ChatGPT were given 68 fictionalized clinical vignettes of hand injuries twice. The models were asked to use a specific classification system and recommend surgical or nonsurgical treatment. Classifications were scored based on correctness. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, a paired two-tailed t-test, and sensitivity testing. Results: Gemini, correctly classifying 70.6% hand injuries, demonstrated superior classification ability over ChatGPT (mean score 1.46 vs. 0.87, p-value < 0.001). For management, ChatGPT demonstrated higher sensitivity in recommending surgical intervention compared to Gemini (98.0% vs. 88.8%), but lower specificity (68.4% vs. 94.7%). When compared to ChatGPT, Gemini demonstrated greater response replicability. Conclusions: Large language models like ChatGPT and Gemini show promise in assisting medical decision making, particularly in hand surgery, with Gemini generally outperforming ChatGPT. These findings emphasize the importance of considering the strengths and limitations of different models when integrating them into clinical practice.

With abundant information and interconnectedness among people, identifying knowledgeable individuals in specific domains has become crucial for organizations. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been employed to evaluate the knowledge and locate experts in specific areas, alleviating the manual burden of expert profiling and identification. However, there is a limited body of research exploring the application of AI algorithms for expert finding in the medical and biomedical fields. This study aims to conduct a scoping review of existing literature on utilizing AI algorithms for expert identification in medical domains. We systematically searched five platforms using a customized search string, and 21 studies were identified through other sources. The search spanned studies up to 2023, and study eligibility and selection adhered to the PRISMA 2020 statement. A total of 571 studies were assessed from the search. Out of these, we included six studies conducted between 2014 and 2020 that met our review criteria. Four studies used a machine learning algorithm as their model, while two utilized natural language processing. One study combined both approaches. All six studies demonstrated significant success in expert retrieval compared to baseline algorithms, as measured by various scoring metrics. AI enhances expert finding accuracy and effectiveness. However, more work is needed in intelligent medical expert retrieval.

Introduction: As large language models receive greater attention in medical research, the investigation of ethical considerations is warranted. This review aims to explore surgery literature to identify ethical concerns surrounding these artificial intelligence models and evaluate how autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice are represented within these ethical discussions to provide insights in order to guide further research and practice. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Five electronic databases were searched in October 2023. Eligible studies included surgery-related articles that focused on large language models and contained adequate ethical discussion. Study details, including specialty and ethical concerns, were collected. Results: The literature search yielded 1179 articles, with 53 meeting the inclusion criteria. Plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery, and neurosurgery were the most represented surgical specialties. Autonomy was the most explicitly cited ethical principle. The most frequently discussed ethical concern was accuracy (n = 45, 84.9%), followed by bias, patient confidentiality, and responsibility. Conclusion: The ethical implications of using large language models in surgery are complex and evolving. The integration of these models into surgery necessitates continuous ethical discourse to ensure responsible and ethical use, balancing technological advancement with human dignity and safety.

Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) are the first point of contact in healthcare. Because PCPs face the challenge of managing diverse patient populations while maintaining up-to-date medical knowledge and updated health records, this study explores the current outcomes and effectiveness of implementing Artificial Intelligence-based Clinical Decision Support Systems (AI-CDSSs) in Primary Healthcare (PHC). Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we systematically searched five databases, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, IEEE, and Google Scholar, and manually searched related articles. Only CDSSs powered by AI targeted to physicians and tested in real clinical PHC settings were included. From a total of 421 articles, 6 met our criteria. We found AI-CDSSs from the US, Netherlands, Spain, and China whose primary tasks included diagnosis support, management and treatment recommendations, and complication prediction. Secondary objectives included lessening physician work burden and reducing healthcare costs. While promising, the outcomes were hindered by physicians’ perceptions and cultural settings. This study underscores the potential of AI-CDSSs in improving clinical management, patient satisfaction, and safety while reducing physician workload. However, further work is needed to explore the broad spectrum of applications that the new AI-CDSSs have in several PHC real clinical settings and measure their clinical outcomes.

Background: Despite numerous measures used to prevent pressure ulcers, their growing prevalence in recent years is expected to continue as the population ages. This review aims to report the outcomes of the regenerative potential of MSCs in treating pressure ulcers, assessing the effectiveness of MSCs in treating pressure ulcers. Methods: A computerized search for articles on animal models that use MSCs as primary therapy to treat pressure ulcers, published from conception to present, was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. Our search yielded 52 articles, narrowed to 44 after excluding duplicates. Results: Out of 52 articles collected from four databases, 11 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 11 articles published between 2008 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies were observational descriptive papers in animal models, and three were prospective. Six studies used autologous MSCs, while five used allogenic MSCs. Three studies were conducted in humans, and the remaining eight were conducted in animals. The most common method of cell delivery was an intradermal injection in the margins of the ulcer. All studies reported positive results, including improved wound healing, reduced inflammation, and improved tissue regeneration. Conclusions: MSCs have shown promising results in treating pressure ulcers in animal and clinical trials. The combination of MSCs and scaffold materials has also been studied and found to be effective in wound healing. A standardized human wound model has been proposed further to investigate the efficacy of cell-based therapies for chronic wounds. However, more research is needed to determine the best quantity of cells to apply for pressure ulcers and to ensure the safety and efficacy of these treatments in clinical settings.

(1) Background: Telemetry units allow the continuous monitoring of vital signs and ECG of patients. Such physiological indicators work as the digital signatures and biomarkers of disease that can aid in detecting abnormalities that appear before cardiac arrests (CAs). This review aims to identify the vital sign abnormalities measured by telemetry systems that most accurately predict CAs. (2) Methods: We conducted a systematic review using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and MEDLINE to search studies evaluating telemetry-detected vital signs that preceded in-hospital CAs (IHCAs). (3) Results and Discussion: Out of 45 studies, 9 met the eligibility criteria. Seven studies were case series, and 2 were case controls. Four studies evaluated ECG parameters, and 5 evaluated other physiological indicators such as blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and temperature. Vital sign changes were highly frequent among participants and reached statistical significance compared to control subjects. There was no single vital sign change pattern found in all patients. ECG alarm thresholds may be adjustable to reduce alarm fatigue. Our review was limited by the significant dissimilarities of the studies on methodology and objectives. (4) Conclusions: Evidence confirms that changes in vital signs have the potential for predicting IHCAs. There is no consensus on how to best analyze these digital biomarkers. More rigorous and larger-scale prospective studies are needed to determine the predictive value of telemetry-detected vital signs for IHCAs.

Electronic health record (EHR) systems collate patient data, and the integration and standardization of documents through Health Information Exchange (HIE) play a pivotal role in refining patient management. Although the clinical implications of AI in EHR systems have been extensively analyzed, its application in HIE as a crucial source of patient data is less explored. Addressing this gap, our systematic review delves into utilizing AI models in HIE, gauging their predictive prowess and potential limitations. Employing databases such as Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed/Medline, and Web of Science and adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, we unearthed 1021 publications. Of these, 11 were shortlisted for the final analysis. A noticeable preference for machine learning models in prognosticating clinical results, notably in oncology and cardiac failures, was evident. The metrics displayed AUC values ranging between 61% and 99.91%. Sensitivity metrics spanned from 12% to 96.50%, specificity from 76.30% to 98.80%, positive predictive values varied from 83.70% to 94.10%, and negative predictive values between 94.10% and 99.10%. Despite variations in specific metrics, AI models drawing on HIE data unfailingly showcased commendable predictive proficiency in clinical verdicts, emphasizing the transformative potential of melding AI with HIE. However, variations in sensitivity highlight underlying challenges. As healthcare’s path becomes more enmeshed with AI, a well-rounded, enlightened approach is pivotal to guarantee the delivery of trustworthy and effective AI-augmented healthcare solutions.