I think where we are now, and which is what our study supports, is an implementation in complex clinical cases. So, for example, a clinician faced with a complex clinical case of a neuropathy where he feels there is something that is not quite getting it, or for example, is less oriented for the diagnosis and management, he may seek the help of GPT, carefully, with a specific clinician’s need to be educated to do this properly, but a proper prompting may lead to quite reliable results if critically appraised, which may lead to an improvement in their reasoning process...
I think where we are now, and which is what our study supports, is an implementation in complex clinical cases. So, for example, a clinician faced with a complex clinical case of a neuropathy where he feels there is something that is not quite getting it, or for example, is less oriented for the diagnosis and management, he may seek the help of GPT, carefully, with a specific clinician’s need to be educated to do this properly, but a proper prompting may lead to quite reliable results if critically appraised, which may lead to an improvement in their reasoning process. It needs to be seen as a reasoning aid, not as a substitution of the clinician. This is not in the current situation, and I don’t envision it in the near future, at least. So, critical appraisal of GPT output and patient-doctor-patient relationships still will remain at the core of the essence, but clinicians may seek the help of GPT, and that help may improve their performance, at least in these specific kinds of diseases, which nevertheless are also, in some figures, 10% of neurology consultations. So, frequent diseases may be helpful.
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.
