Applications of ChatGPT in the diagnosis, management, education, and research of retinal diseases: a scoping review

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: This scoping review aims to explore the current applications of ChatGPT in the retina field, highlighting its potential, challenges, and limitations. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, and Embase, to identify relevant articles published from 2022 onwards. The inclusion criteria focused on studies evaluating the use of ChatGPT in retinal healthcare. Data were extracted and synthesized to map the scope of ChatGPT's applications in retinal care, categorizing articles into various practical application areas such as academic research, charting, coding, diagnosis, disease management, and patient counseling. RESULTS: A total of 68 articles were included in the review, distributed across several categories: 8 related to academics and research, 5 to charting, 1 to coding and billing, 44 to diagnosis, 49 to disease management, 2 to literature consulting, 23 to medical education, and 33 to patient counseling. Many articles were classified into multiple categories due to overlapping topics. The findings indicate that while ChatGPT shows significant promise in areas such as medical education and diagnostic support, concerns regarding accuracy, reliability, and the potential for misinformation remain prevalent. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT offers substantial potential in advancing retinal healthcare by supporting clinical decision-making, enhancing patient education, and automating administrative tasks. However, its current limitations, particularly in clinical accuracy and the risk of generating misinformation, necessitate cautious integration into practice, with continuous oversight from healthcare professionals. Future developments should focus on improving accuracy, incorporating up-to-date medical guidelines, and minimizing the risks associated with AI-driven healthcare tools.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.