ABSTRACT
Rationale and Objectives Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to enhance medical training, education, and diagnosis. However, since these models were not originally designed for medical purposes, there are concerns regarding their reliability and safety in clinical settings. This review systematically assesses the utility, advantages, and potential risks of employing LLMs in the field of hematology.
Materials and Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for original publications on LLMs application in hematology. We limited the search to articles published in English from December 01 2022 to March 25, 2024, coinciding with the introduction of ChatGPT. To evaluate the risk of bias, we used the adapted version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria (QUADAS-2).
Results Eleven studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The studies varied in their goals and methods, covering medical education, diagnosis, and clinical practice. GPT-3.5 and GPT-4’s demonstrated superior performance in diagnostic tasks and medical information propagation compared to other models like Google’s Bard (currently called Gemini). GPT-4 demonstrated particularly high accuracy in tasks such as interpreting hematology cases and diagnosing hemoglobinopathy, with performance metrics of 76% diagnostic accuracy and 88% accuracy in identifying normal blood cells. However, the study also revealed discrepancies in model consistency and the accuracy of provided references, indicating variability in their reliability.
Conclusion While LLMs present significant opportunities for advancing clinical hematology, their incorporation into medical practice requires careful evaluation of their benefits and limitations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
