PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Nov, Oded
AU  - Singh, Nina
AU  - Mann, Devin M.
TI  - Putting ChatGPT’s Medical Advice to the (Turing) Test
AID  - 10.1101/2023.01.23.23284735
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.01.23.23284735
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/24/2023.01.23.23284735.1.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/24/2023.01.23.23284735.1.full
AB  - Importance Chatbots could play a role in answering patient questions, but patients’ ability to distinguish between provider and chatbot responses, and patients’ trust in chatbots’ functions are not well established.Objective To assess the feasibility of using ChatGPT or a similar AI-based chatbot for patient-provider communication.Design Survey in January 2023Setting SurveyParticipants A US representative sample of 430 study participants aged 18 and above was recruited on Prolific, a crowdsourcing platform for academic studies. 426 participants filled out the full survey. After removing participants who spent less than 3 minutes on the survey, 392 respondents remained. 53.2% of respondents analyzed were women; their average age was 47.1.Exposure(s) Ten representative non-administrative patient-provider interactions were extracted from the EHR. Patients’ questions were placed in ChatGPT with a request for the chatbot to respond using approximately the same word count as the human provider’s response. In the survey, each patient’s question was followed by a provider- or ChatGPT-generated response. Participants were informed that five responses were provider-generated and five were chatbot-generated. Participants were asked, and incentivized financially, to correctly identify the response source. Participants were also asked about their trust in chatbots’ functions in patient-provider communication, using a Likert scale of 1-5.Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) Main outcome: Proportion of responses correctly classified as provider- vs chatbot-generated. Secondary outcomes: Average and standard deviation of responses to trust questions.Results The correct classification of responses ranged between 49.0% to 85.7% for different questions. On average, chatbot responses were correctly identified 65.5% of the time, and provider responses were correctly distinguished 65.1% of the time. On average, responses toward patients’ trust in chatbots’ functions were weakly positive (mean Likert score: 3.4), with lower trust as the health-related complexity of the task in questions increased.Conclusions and Relevance ChatGPT responses to patient questions were weakly distinguishable from provider responses. Laypeople appear to trust the use of chatbots to answer lower risk health questions. It is important to continue studying patient-chatbot interaction as chatbots move from administrative to more clinical roles in healthcare.Conclusions and Relevance AI in Medicine; ChatGPT; Generative AI; Healthcare AI; Turing Test;Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by NSF grant 1928614.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This was filed as a Quality Improvement study at NYU Langone Health.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors