Cheungpasitporn, Wisit

Chain-of-thought prompting enhances the abilities of large language models (LLMs) significantly. It not only makes these models more specific and context-aware but also impacts the wider field of artificial intelligence (AI). This approach broadens the usability of AI, increases its efficiency, and aligns it more closely with human thinking and decision-making processes. As we improve this method, it is set to become a key element in the future of AI, adding more purpose, precision, and ethical consideration to these technologies. In medicine, the chain-of-thought prompting is especially beneficial. Its capacity to handle complex information, its logical and sequential reasoning, and its suitability for ethically and context-sensitive situations make it an invaluable tool for healthcare professionals. Its role in enhancing medical care and research is expected to grow as we further develop and use this technique. Chain-of-thought prompting bridges the gap between AI’s traditionally obscure decision-making process and the clear, accountable standards required in healthcare. It does this by emulating a reasoning style familiar to medical professionals, fitting well into their existing practices and ethical codes. While solving AI transparency is a complex challenge, the chain-of-thought approach is a significant step toward making AI more comprehensible and trustworthy in medicine. This review focuses on understanding the workings of LLMs, particularly how chain-of-thought prompting can be adapted for nephrology’s unique requirements. It also aims to thoroughly examine the ethical aspects, clarity, and future possibilities, offering an in-depth view of the exciting convergence of these areas.

Background and Objectives: Limited evidence exists regarding the safety and efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of GLP-1RAs in T2DM patients with advanced CKD and ESKD. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database until 25 October 2023. Included were clinical trials and cohort studies reporting outcomes of GLP-1RAs in adult patients with T2DM and advanced CKD. Outcome measures encompassed mortality, cardiovascular parameters, blood glucose, and weight. Safety was assessed for adverse events. The differences in effects were expressed as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and the weighted mean difference or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals for continuous outcomes. The Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies—of Interventions (ROBIN-I) tool was used in cohort and non-randomized controlled studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool was used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD 42023398452) and received no external funding. Results: Eight studies (five trials and three cohort studies) consisting of 27,639 patients were included in this meta-analysis. No difference was observed in one-year mortality. However, GLP-1RAs significantly reduced cardiothoracic ratio (SMD of −1.2%; 95% CI −2.0, −0.4) and pro-BNP (SMD −335.9 pmol/L; 95% CI −438.9, −232.8). There was no significant decrease in systolic blood pressure. Moreover, GLP-1RAs significantly reduced mean blood glucose (SMD −1.1 mg/dL; 95% CI −1.8, −0.3) and increased weight loss (SMD −2.2 kg; 95% CI −2.9, −1.5). In terms of safety, GLP-1RAs were associated with a 3.8- and 35.7-time higher risk of nausea and vomiting, respectively, but were not significantly associated with a higher risk of hypoglycemia. Conclusions: Despite the limited number of studies in each analysis, our study provides evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of GLP-1RAs among T2DM patients with advanced CKD and ESKD. While gastrointestinal side effects may occur, GLP-1RAs demonstrate significant improvements in blood glucose control, weight reduction, and potential benefit in cardiovascular outcomes.

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has greatly propelled progress across various sectors including the field of nephrology academia. However, this advancement has also given rise to ethical challenges, notably in scholarly writing. AI’s capacity to automate labor-intensive tasks like literature reviews and data analysis has created opportunities for unethical practices, with scholars incorporating AI-generated text into their manuscripts, potentially undermining academic integrity. This situation gives rise to a range of ethical dilemmas that not only question the authenticity of contemporary academic endeavors but also challenge the credibility of the peer-review process and the integrity of editorial oversight. Instances of this misconduct are highlighted, spanning from lesser-known journals to reputable ones, and even infiltrating graduate theses and grant applications. This subtle AI intrusion hints at a systemic vulnerability within the academic publishing domain, exacerbated by the publish-or-perish mentality. The solutions aimed at mitigating the unethical employment of AI in academia include the adoption of sophisticated AI-driven plagiarism detection systems, a robust augmentation of the peer-review process with an “AI scrutiny” phase, comprehensive training for academics on ethical AI usage, and the promotion of a culture of transparency that acknowledges AI’s role in research. This review underscores the pressing need for collaborative efforts among academic nephrology institutions to foster an environment of ethical AI application, thus preserving the esteemed academic integrity in the face of rapid technological advancements. It also makes a plea for rigorous research to assess the extent of AI’s involvement in the academic literature, evaluate the effectiveness of AI-enhanced plagiarism detection tools, and understand the long-term consequences of AI utilization on academic integrity. An example framework has been proposed to outline a comprehensive approach to integrating AI into Nephrology academic writing and peer review. Using proactive initiatives and rigorous evaluations, a harmonious environment that harnesses AI’s capabilities while upholding stringent academic standards can be envisioned.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, particularly machine learning, has brought substantial progress to the field of nephrology, enabling significant improvements in the management of kidney diseases. ChatGPT, a revolutionary language model developed by OpenAI, is a versatile AI model designed to engage in meaningful and informative conversations. Its applications in healthcare have been notable, with demonstrated proficiency in various medical knowledge assessments. However, ChatGPT’s performance varies across different medical subfields, posing challenges in nephrology-related queries. At present, comprehensive reviews regarding ChatGPT’s potential applications in nephrology remain lacking despite the surge of interest in its role in various domains. This article seeks to fill this gap by presenting an overview of the integration of ChatGPT in nephrology. It discusses the potential benefits of ChatGPT in nephrology, encompassing dataset management, diagnostics, treatment planning, and patient communication and education, as well as medical research and education. It also explores ethical and legal concerns regarding the utilization of AI in medical practice. The continuous development of AI models like ChatGPT holds promise for the healthcare realm but also underscores the necessity of thorough evaluation and validation before implementing AI in real-world medical scenarios. This review serves as a valuable resource for nephrologists and healthcare professionals interested in fully utilizing the potential of AI in innovating personalized nephrology care.

AbstractBackgroundWe aimed to cluster deceased donor kidney transplant recipients with prolonged cold ischemia time (CIT) using an unsupervised machine learning approach.MethodsWe performed consensus cluster analysis on 11 615 deceased donor kidney transplant patients with CIT exceeding 24 h using OPTN/UNOS data from 2015 to 2019. Cluster characteristics of clinical significance were identified, and post‐transplant outcomes were compared.ResultsConsensus cluster analysis identified two clinically distinct clusters. Cluster 1 was characterized by young, non‐diabetic patients who received kidney transplants from young, non‐hypertensive, non‐ECD deceased donors with lower KDPI scores. In contrast, the patients in cluster 2 were older and more likely to have diabetes. Cluster 2 recipients were more likely to receive transplants from older donors with a higher KDPI. There was lower use of machine perfusion in Cluster 1 and incrementally longer CIT in Cluster 2. Cluster 2 had a higher incidence of delayed graft function (42% vs. 29%), and lower 1‐year patient (95% vs. 98%) and death‐censored (95% vs. 97%) graft survival compared to Cluster 1.ConclusionsUnsupervised machine learning characterized deceased donor kidney transplant recipients with prolonged CIT into two clusters with differing outcomes. Although Cluster 1 had more favorable recipient and donor characteristics and better survival, the outcomes observed in Cluster 2 were also satisfactory. Overall, both clusters demonstrated good survival suggesting opportunities for transplant centers to incrementally increase CIT.

In modern eye care, the adoption of ophthalmology chatbots stands out as a pivotal technological progression. These digital assistants present numerous benefits, such as better access to vital information, heightened patient interaction, and streamlined triaging. Recent evaluations have highlighted their performance in both the triage of ophthalmology conditions and ophthalmology knowledge assessment, underscoring their potential and areas for improvement. However, assimilating these chatbots into the prevailing healthcare infrastructures brings challenges. These encompass ethical dilemmas, legal compliance, seamless integration with electronic health records (EHR), and fostering effective dialogue with medical professionals. Addressing these challenges necessitates the creation of bespoke standards and protocols for ophthalmology chatbots. The horizon for these chatbots is illuminated by advancements and anticipated innovations, poised to redefine the delivery of eye care. The synergy of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) with chatbots amplifies their diagnostic prowess. Additionally, their capability to adapt linguistically and culturally ensures they can cater to a global patient demographic. In this article, we explore in detail the utilization of chatbots in ophthalmology, examining their accuracy, reliability, data protection, security, transparency, potential algorithmic biases, and ethical considerations. We provide a comprehensive review of their roles in the triage of ophthalmology conditions and knowledge assessment, emphasizing their significance and future potential in the field.

The exponential growth of artificial intelligence (AI) has allowed for its integration into multiple sectors, including, notably, healthcare. Chatbots have emerged as a pivotal resource for improving patient outcomes and assisting healthcare practitioners through various AI-based technologies. In critical care, kidney-related conditions play a significant role in determining patient outcomes. This article examines the potential for integrating chatbots into the workflows of critical care nephrology to optimize patient care. We detail their specific applications in critical care nephrology, such as managing acute kidney injury, alert systems, and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT); facilitating discussions around palliative care; and bolstering collaboration within a multidisciplinary team. Chatbots have the potential to augment real-time data availability, evaluate renal health, identify potential risk factors, build predictive models, and monitor patient progress. Moreover, they provide a platform for enhancing communication and education for both patients and healthcare providers, paving the way for enriched knowledge and honed professional skills. However, it is vital to recognize the inherent challenges and limitations when using chatbots in this domain. Here, we provide an in-depth exploration of the concerns tied to chatbots’ accuracy, dependability, data protection and security, transparency, potential algorithmic biases, and ethical implications in critical care nephrology. While human discernment and intervention are indispensable, especially in complex medical scenarios or intricate situations, the sustained advancements in AI signal that the integration of precision-engineered chatbot algorithms within critical care nephrology has considerable potential to elevate patient care and pivotal outcome metrics in the future.

Background and Objectives: Literature reviews are foundational to understanding medical evidence. With AI tools like ChatGPT, Bing Chat and Bard AI emerging as potential aids in this domain, this study aimed to individually assess their citation accuracy within Nephrology, comparing their performance in providing precise. Materials and Methods: We generated the prompt to solicit 20 references in Vancouver style in each 12 Nephrology topics, using ChatGPT, Bing Chat and Bard. We verified the existence and accuracy of the provided references using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. We categorized the validity of the references from the AI chatbot into (1) incomplete, (2) fabricated, (3) inaccurate, and (4) accurate. Results: A total of 199 (83%), 158 (66%) and 112 (47%) unique references were provided from ChatGPT, Bing Chat and Bard, respectively. ChatGPT provided 76 (38%) accurate, 82 (41%) inaccurate, 32 (16%) fabricated and 9 (5%) incomplete references. Bing Chat provided 47 (30%) accurate, 77 (49%) inaccurate, 21 (13%) fabricated and 13 (8%) incomplete references. In contrast, Bard provided 3 (3%) accurate, 26 (23%) inaccurate, 71 (63%) fabricated and 12 (11%) incomplete references. The most common error type across platforms was incorrect DOIs. Conclusions: In the field of medicine, the necessity for faultless adherence to research integrity is highlighted, asserting that even small errors cannot be tolerated. The outcomes of this investigation draw attention to inconsistent citation accuracy across the different AI tools evaluated. Despite some promising results, the discrepancies identified call for a cautious and rigorous vetting of AI-sourced references in medicine. Such chatbots, before becoming standard tools, need substantial refinements to assure unwavering precision in their outputs.