ChatGPT在偏头痛预防文献评估中的效用：一项观察性定性研究的数据表2

数据集获取（Figshare）

• 源站标题：Data_Sheet_2_The utility of ChatGPT in the assessment of literature on the prevention of migraine: an observational, qualitative study.docx
• DOI：10.3389/fneur.2023.1225223.s002
• 发布日期：2023-08-17
• 文件数：1 个
• 文件总体积：25.96 KB
• 源站页面：https://frontiersin.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Data_Sheet_2_The_utility_of_ChatGPT_in_the_assessment_of_literature_on_the_prevention_of_migraine_an_observational_qualitative_study_docx/23973405

命令行下载

curl -L -o "Data_Sheet_2_The utility of ChatGPT in the assessment of literature on the prevention of migraine: an observational, qualitative study.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/42035487"

文件清单

• Data_Sheet_2_The utility of ChatGPT in the assessment of literature on the prevention of migraine: an observational, qualitative study.docx（25.96 KB）

文件总体积 25.96 KB（源站 API 实测）。

数据说明

BackgroundIt is not known how large language models, such as ChatGPT, can be applied toward the assessment of the efficacy of medications, including in the prevention of migraine, and how it might support those claims with existing medical evidence.
MethodsWe queried ChatGPT-3.5 on the efficacy of 47 medications for the prevention of migraine and then asked it to give citations in support of its assessment. ChatGPT’s evaluations were then compared to their FDA approval status for this indication as well as the American Academy of Neurology 2012 evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of migraine. The citations ChatGPT generated for these evaluations were then assessed to see if they were real papers and if they were relevant to the query.
ResultsChatGPT affirmed that the 14 medications that have either received FDA approval for prevention of migraine or AAN Grade A/B evidence were effective for migraine. Its assessments of the other 33 medications were unreliable including suggesting possible efficacy for four medications that have never been used for the prevention of migraine. Critically, only 33/115 (29%) of the papers ChatGPT cited were real, while 76/115 (66%) were “hallucinated” not real papers and 6/115 (5%) shared the names of real papers but had not real citations.
ConclusionWhile ChatGPT produced tailored answers on the efficacy of the queried medications, the results were unreliable and inaccurate because of the overwhelming volume of “hallucinated” articles it generated and cited.

许可

CC BY 4.0

引用

学术使用请引用 DOI 10.3389/fneur.2023.1225223.s002（source: https://frontiersin.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Data_Sheet_2_The_utility_of_ChatGPT_in_the_assessment_of_literature_on_the_prevention_of_migraine_an_observational_qualitative_study_docx/23973405）。