This site needs JavaScript to work properly. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features!
Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log in
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec;38(12):2235-2239.
doi: 10.1111/jdv.20237. Epub 2024 Jul 12.

Appraisal of AI-generated dermatology literature reviews

Affiliations

Appraisal of AI-generated dermatology literature reviews

Lauren Passby et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have the potential to revolutionize many facets of medicine and medical sciences research. Numerous AI tools have been developed and are in continuous states of iterative improvement in their functionality.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the performance of three AI tools: The Literature, Microsoft's Copilot and Google's Gemini in performing literature reviews on a range of dermatology topics.

Methods: Each tool was asked to write a literature review on five topics. The topics chosen have recently had peer-reviewed systematic reviews published. The outputs of each took were graded on their evidence and analysis, conclusions and references on a 5-point Likert scale by three dermatologists who are working in clinical practice, have completed the UK dermatology postgraduate training examination and are partaking in continued professional development.

Results: Across all five topics chosen, the literature reviews written by Gemini scored the highest. The mean score for Gemini for each review was 10.53, significantly higher than the mean scores achieved by The Literature (7.73) and Copilot (7.4) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: This paper shows that AI-generated literature reviews can provide real-time summaries of medical literature across a range of dermatology topics, but limitations to their comprehensiveness and accuracy are apparent.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Passby L, Jenko N, Wernham A. Performance of ChatGPT on dermatology specialty certificate examination multiple choice questions. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2023;49:722–727.
    1. Rajjoub R, Arroyave JS, Zaidat B, Ahmed W, Mejia MR, Tang J, et al. ChatGPT and its role in the decision‐making for the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative analysis and narrative review. Glob Spine J. 2023;14:998–1017.
    1. Marsden H, Morgan C, Austin S, DeGiovanni C, Venzi M, Kemos P, et al. Effectiveness of an image analyzing AI‐based digital health technology to identify non‐melanoma skin cancer and other skin lesions: results of the DERM‐003 study. Front Med. 2023;10:1288521.
    1. Dogra S, Sharma A, Mehta H, Sarkar R. Emerging role of topical Janus kinase inhibitors in dermatological disorders: a review. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2023;48(10):1102–1112.
    1. Passby L, Tso S, Wernham A. Skin surgery training: a literature review of methods and their efficacy. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2023;48(6):585–590.

LinkOut - more resources

Cite

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /