Can artificial intelligence replace biochemists? A study comparing interpretation of thyroid function test results by ChatGPT and Google Bard to practising biochemists.

Abstract

Public awareness of artificial intelligence (AI) is increasing and this novel technology is being used for a range of everyday tasks and more specialist clinical applications. On a background of increasing waits for GP appointments alongside patient access to laboratory test results through the NHS app, this study aimed to assess the accuracy and safety of two AI tools, ChatGPT and Google Bard, in providing interpretation of thyroid function test results as if posed by laboratory scientists or patients. Fifteen fictional cases were presented to a team of clinicians and clinical scientists to produce a consensus opinion. The cases were then presented to ChatGPT and Google Bard as though from healthcare providers and from patients. The responses were categorized as correct, partially correct or incorrect compared to consensus opinion and the advice assessed for safety to patients. Of the 15 cases presented, ChatGPT and Google Bard correctly interpreted only 33.3% and 20.0% of cases, respectively. When queries were posed as a patient, 66.7% of ChatGPT responses were safe compared to 60.0% of Google Bard responses. Both AI tools were able to identify primary hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism but failed to identify subclinical presentations, non-thyroidal illness or secondary hypothyroidism. This study has demonstrated that AI tools do not currently have the capacity to generate consistently correct interpretation and safe advice to patients and should not be used as an alternative to a consultation with a qualified medical professional. Available AI in its current form cannot replace human clinical knowledge in this scenario.