ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purposes of the study was to describe the degree of agreement between geriatricians with the answers given by an AI tool (ChatGPT) in response to questions related to different areas in geriatrics, to study the differences between specialists and residents in geriatrics in terms of the degree of agreement with ChatGPT, and to analyse the mean scores obtained by areas of knowledge/domains. METHODS: An observational study was conducted involving 126 doctors from 41 geriatric medicine departments in Spain. Ten questions about geriatric medicine were posed to ChatGPT, and doctors evaluated the AI's answers using a Likert scale. Sociodemographic variables were included. Questions were categorized into five knowledge domains, and means and standard deviations were calculated for each. RESULTS: 130 doctors answered the questionnaire. 126 doctors (69.8% women, mean age 41.4 [9.8]) were included in the final analysis. The mean score obtained by ChatGPT was 3.1/5 [0.67]. Specialists rated ChatGPT lower than residents (3.0/5 vs. 3.3/5 points, respectively, P < 0.05). By domains, ChatGPT ââscored better (M: 3.96; SD: 0.71) in general/theoretical questions rather than in complex decisions/end-of-life situations (M: 2.50; SD: 0.76) and answers related to diagnosis/performing of complementary tests obtained the lowest ones (M: 2.48; SD: 0.77). CONCLUSION: Scores presented big variability depending on the area of knowledge. Questions related to theoretical aspects of challenges/future in geriatrics obtained better scores. When it comes to complex decision-making, appropriateness of the therapeutic efforts or decisions about diagnostic tests, professionals indicated a poorer performance. AI is likely to be incorporated into some areas of medicine, but it would still present important limitations, mainly in complex medical decision-making.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Incisional Hernia/epidemiology , Incisional Hernia/surgery , Comorbidity , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
La pandemia por el COVID-19 nos ha encontrado desprotegidos ante la dificultad para dar una respuesta sanitaria adecuada y rápida. La red de hospitales del sistema sanitario público ha dispuesto la mayoría de los recursos para el tratamiento de los pacientes afectos por la infección. Las cirugías no esenciales (no prioritarias) han sido aplazadas. El reinicio óptimo y proporcionado de estas cirugías no prioritarias puede representar un problema. En el presente artículo se ofrece una perspectiva técnica y no técnica del reinicio de las cirugías no prioritarias desde la óptica de la cirugía de la pared abdominal
Pandemic by the COVID-19 has found us unprotected to provide an adequate and rapid sanitary response. The hospital network of our public health system has provided most of the resources for the treatment of patients affected by the infection. Non-essential (non-priority) surgeries have been postponed. The optimal and proportionate reestablishment of these non-priority surgeries can be a problem. This article offers a technical and non-technical view of reestablishment non-priority surgeries from the perspective of abdominal wall surgery
Subject(s)
Humans , Abdominal Wall/surgery , Coronavirus Infections , Betacoronavirus , Pandemics , Hernia, Abdominal/surgery , Elective Surgical Procedures , Decision MakingABSTRACT
Pandemic by the COVID-19 has found us unprotected to provide an adequate and rapid sanitary response. The hospital network of our public health system has provided most of the resources for the treatment of patients affected by the infection. Non-essential (non-priority) surgeries have been postponed. The optimal and proportionate reestablishment of these non-priority surgeries can be a problem. This article offers a technical and non-technical view of reestablishment non-priority surgeries from the perspective of abdominal wall surgery.
