An evaluation of AI generated literature reviews in musculoskeletal radiology

Abstract

PurposeThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to aid in summarizing information in medicine and research has recently garnered a huge amount of interest. While tools such as ChatGPT produce convincing and naturally sounding output, the answers are sometimes incorrect. Some of these drawbacks, it is hoped, can be avoided by using programmes trained for a more specific scope. In this study we compared the performance of a new AI tool (the-literature.com) to the latest version OpenAI's ChatGPT (GPT-4) in summarizing topics that the authors have significantly contributed to. MethodsThe AI tools were asked to produce a literature review on 7 topics. These were selected based on the research topics that the authors were intimately familiar with and have contributed to through their own publications. The output produced by the AI tools were graded on a 1–5 Likert scale for accuracy, comprehensiveness, and relevance by two fellowship trained consultant radiologists. ResultsThe-literature.com produced 3 excellent summaries, 3 very poor summaries not relevant to the prompt, and one summary, which was relevant but did not include all relevant papers. All of the summaries produced by GPT-4 were relevant, but fewer relevant papers were identified. The average Likert rating was for the-literature was 2.88 and 3.86 for GPT-4. There was good agreement between the ratings of both radiologists (ICC = 0.883). ConclusionSummaries produced by AI in its current state require careful human validation. GPT-4 on average provides higher quality summaries. Neither tool can reliably identify all relevant publications.