Generative artificial intelligence in healthcare: A scoping review on benefits, challenges and applications.

BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is revolutionizing healthcare with solutions for complex challenges, enhancing diagnosis, treatment, and care through new data and insights. However, its integration raises questions about applications, benefits, and challenges. Our study explores these aspects, offering an overview of GAI's applications and future prospects in healthcare. METHODS: This scoping review searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus . The selection of studies involved screening titles, reviewing abstracts, and examining full texts, adhering to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines throughout the process. RESULTS: From 1406 articles across three databases, 109 met inclusion criteria after screening and deduplication. Nine GAI models were utilized in healthcare, with ChatGPT (n = 102, 74 %), Google Bard (Gemini) (n = 16, 11 %), and Microsoft Bing AI (n = 10, 7 %) being the most frequently employed. A total of 24 different applications of GAI in healthcare were identified, with the most common being "offering insights and information on health conditions through answering questions" (n = 41) and "diagnosis and prediction of diseases" (n = 17). In total, 606 benefits and challenges were identified, which were condensed to 48 benefits and 61 challenges after consolidation. The predominant benefits included "Providing rapid access to information and valuable insights" and "Improving prediction and diagnosis accuracy", while the primary challenges comprised "generating inaccurate or fictional content", "unknown source of information and fake references for texts", and "lower accuracy in answering questions". CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified the applications, benefits, and challenges of GAI in healthcare. This synthesis offers a crucial overview of GAI's potential to revolutionize healthcare, emphasizing the imperative to address its limitations.

Assessment of CBCT gray value in different regions-of-interest and fields-of-view compared to Hounsfield unit.

OBJECTIVES: Different factors can affect the discrepancy between the gray value (GV) measurements obtained from CBCT and the Hounsfield unit (HU) derived from multidetector CT (MDCT), which is considered the gold-standard density scale. This study aimed to explore the impact of region of interest (ROI) location and field of view (FOV) size on the difference between these two scales as a potential source of error. METHODS: Three phantoms, each consisting of a water-filled plastic bin containing a dry dentate human skull, were prepared. CBCT scans were conducted using the NewTom VGi evo system, while MDCT scans were performed using Philips system. Three different FOV sizes (8 × 8 cm, 8 × 12 cm, and 12 × 15 cm) were used, and the GVs obtained from eight distinct ROIs were compared with the HUs from the MDCT scans. The ROIs included dental and bony regions within the anterior and posterior areas of both jaws. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v. 26. RESULTS: The GVs derived from CBCT images were significantly influenced by both ROI location and FOV size (p < 0.05 for both factors). Following the comparison between GVs and HUs, the anterior mandibular bone ROI represented the minimum error, while the posterior mandibular teeth exhibited the maximum error. Moreover, the 8 × 8 cm and 12 × 15 cm FOVs resulted in the lowest and highest degrees of GV error, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ROI location and the FOV size can significantly affect the GVs obtained from CBCT images. It is not recommended to use the GV scale within the posterior mandibular teeth region due to the potential for error. Additionally, selecting smaller FOV sizes, such as 8 × 8 cm, can provide GVs closer to the gold-standard numbers.