Accuracy of Large Language Models for Infective Endocarditis Prophylaxis in Dental Procedures.

PURPOSE: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious, life-threatening condition requiring antibiotic prophylaxis for high-risk individuals undergoing invasive dental procedures. As LLMs are rapidly adopted by dental professionals for their efficiency and accessibility, assessing their accuracy in answering critical questions about antibiotic prophylaxis for IE prevention is crucial. METHODS: Twenty-eight true/false questions based on the 2021 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for IE were posed to 7 popular LLMs. Each model underwent five independent runs per question using two prompt strategies: a pre-prompt as an experienced dentist and without a pre-prompt. Inter-model comparisons utilised the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons using Prism 10 software. RESULTS: Significant differences in accuracy were observed among the LLMs. All LLMs had a narrower confidence interval with a pre-prompt, and most, except Claude 3 Opus, showed improved performance. GPT-4o had the highest accuracy (80% with a pre-prompt, 78.57% without), followed by Gemini 1.5 Pro (78.57% and 77.86%) and Claude 3 Opus (75.71% and 77.14%). Gemini 1.5 Flash had the lowest accuracy (68.57% and 63.57%). Without a pre-prompt, Gemini 1.5 Flash's accuracy was significantly lower than Claude 3 Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and GPT-4o. With a pre-prompt, Gemini 1.5 Flash and Claude 3.5 were significantly less accurate than Gemini 1.5 Pro and GPT-4o. None of the LLMs met the commonly used benchmark scores. All models provided both correct and incorrect answers randomly, except Claude 3.5 Sonnet with a pre-prompt, which consistently gave incorrect answers to eight questions across five runs. CONCLUSION: LLMs like GPT-4o show promise for retrieving AHA-IE guideline information, achieving up to 80% accuracy. However, complex medical questions may still pose a challenge. Pre-prompts offer a potential solution, and domain-specific training is essential for optimizing LLM performance in healthcare, especially with the emergence of models with increased token limits.

Conversational AI and equity through assessing GPT-3's communication with diverse social groups on contentious topics.

Autoregressive language models, which use deep learning to produce human-like texts, have surged in prevalence. Despite advances in these models, concerns arise about their equity across diverse populations. While AI fairness is discussed widely, metrics to measure equity in dialogue systems are lacking. This paper presents a framework, rooted in deliberative democracy and science communication studies, to evaluate equity in human-AI communication. Using it, we conducted an algorithm auditing study to examine how GPT-3 responded to different populations who vary in sociodemographic backgrounds and viewpoints on crucial science and social issues: climate change and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. We analyzed 20,000 dialogues with 3290 participants differing in gender, race, education, and opinions. We found a substantively worse user experience among the opinion minority groups (e.g., climate deniers, racists) and the education minority groups; however, these groups changed attitudes toward supporting BLM and climate change efforts much more compared to other social groups after the chat. GPT-3 used more negative expressions when responding to the education and opinion minority groups. We discuss the social-technological implications of our findings for a conversational AI system that centralizes diversity, equity, and inclusion.