SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Gan RK, Ogbodo JC, Wee YZ, Gan AZ, González PA. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2023; 75: 72-78.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ajem.2023.10.034

PMID

37967485

Abstract

AIM: The objective of our research is to evaluate and compare the performance of ChatGPT, Google Bard, and medical students in performing START triage during mass casualty situations.

METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to compare ChatGPT, Google Bard, and medical students in mass casualty incident (MCI) triage using the Simple Triage And Rapid Treatment (START) method. A validated questionnaire with 15 diverse MCI scenarios was used to assess triage accuracy and content analysis in four categories: "Walking wounded," "Respiration," "Perfusion," and "Mental Status." Statistical analysis compared the results.

RESULT: Google Bard demonstrated a notably higher accuracy of 60%, while ChatGPT achieved an accuracy of 26.67% (p = 0.002). Comparatively, medical students performed at an accuracy rate of 64.3% in a previous study. However, there was no significant difference observed between Google Bard and medical students (p = 0.211). Qualitative content analysis of 'walking-wounded', 'respiration', 'perfusion', and 'mental status' indicated that Google Bard outperformed ChatGPT.

CONCLUSION: Google Bard was found to be superior to ChatGPT in correctly performing mass casualty incident triage. Google Bard achieved an accuracy of 60%, while chatGPT only achieved an accuracy of 26.67%. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002).


Language: en

Keywords

Triage; Artificial intelligence; Disaster medicine; Mass casualty incident

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print