Large language models such as ChatGPT can produce increasingly realistic text, with unknown information on the accuracy and integrity of using these models in scientific writing. We gathered fifth research abstracts from five high-impact factor medical journals and asked ChatGPT to generate research abstracts based on their titles and journals. Most generated abstracts were detected using an AI output detector, ‘GPT-2 Output Detector’, with % ‘fake’ scores (higher meaning more likely to be generated) of median [interquartile range] of 99.98% ‘fake’ [12.73%, 99.98%] compared with median 0.02% [IQR 0.02%, 0.09%] for the original abstracts. The AUROC of the AI output detector was 0.94. Generated abstracts scored lower than original abstracts when run through a plagiarism detector website and iThenticate (higher scores meaning more matching text found). When given a mixture of original and general abstracts, blinded human reviewers correctly identified 68% of generated abstracts as being generated by ChatGPT, but incorrectly identified 14% of original abstracts as being generated. Reviewers indicated that it was surprisingly difficult to differentiate between the two, though abstracts they suspected were generated were vaguer and more formulaic. ChatGPT writes believable scientific abstracts, though with completely generated data. Depending on publisher-specific guidelines, AI output detectors may serve as an editorial tool to help maintain scientific standards. The boundaries of ethical and acceptable use of large language models to help scientific writing are still being discussed, and different journals and conferences are adopting varying policies.

Machine learning is frequently being leveraged to tackle problems in the health sector including utilization for clinical decision-support. Its use has historically been focused on single modal data. Attempts to improve prediction and mimic the multimodal nature of clinical expert decision-making has been met in the biomedical field of machine learning by fusing disparate data. This review was conducted to summarize the current studies in this field and identify topics ripe for future research. We conducted this review in accordance with the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews to characterize multi-modal data fusion in health. Search strings were established and used in databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and IEEEXplore from 2011 to 2021. A final set of 128 articles were included in the analysis. The most common health areas utilizing multi-modal methods were neurology and oncology. Early fusion was the most common data merging strategy. Notably, there was an improvement in predictive performance when using data fusion. Lacking from the papers were clear clinical deployment strategies, FDA-approval, and analysis of how using multimodal approaches from diverse sub-populations may improve biases and healthcare disparities. These findings provide a summary on multimodal data fusion as applied to health diagnosis/prognosis problems. Few papers compared the outputs of a multimodal approach with a unimodal prediction. However, those that did achieved an average increase of 6.4% in predictive accuracy. Multi-modal machine learning, while more robust in its estimations over unimodal methods, has drawbacks in its scalability and the time-consuming nature of information concatenation.

The recent development of imaging and sequencing technologies enables systematic advances in the clinical study of lung cancer. Meanwhile, the human mind is limited in effectively handling and fully utilizing the accumulation of such enormous amounts of data. Machine learning-based approaches play a critical role in integrating and analyzing these large and complex datasets, which have extensively characterized lung cancer through the use of different perspectives from these accrued data. In this review, we provide an overview of machine learning-based approaches that strengthen the varying aspects of lung cancer diagnosis and therapy, including early detection, auxiliary diagnosis, prognosis prediction, and immunotherapy practice. Moreover, we highlight the challenges and opportunities for future applications of machine learning in lung cancer.

Objective: ChatGPT is the first large language model (LLM) to reach a large, mainstream audience. Its rapid adoption and exploration by the population at large has sparked a wide range of discussions regarding its acceptable and optimal integration in different areas. In a hybrid (virtual and in-person) panel discussion event, we examined various perspectives regarding the use of ChatGPT in education, research, and healthcare. Materials and methods: We surveyed in-person and online attendees using an audience interaction platform (Slido). We quantitatively analyzed received responses on questions about the use of ChatGPT in various contexts. We compared pairwise categorical groups with a Fisher’s Exact. Furthermore, we used qualitative methods to analyze and code discussions. Results: We received 420 responses from an estimated 844 participants (response rate 49.7%). Only 40% of the audience had tried ChatGPT. More trainees had tried ChatGPT compared with faculty. Those who had used ChatGPT were more interested in using it in a wider range of contexts going forwards. Of the three discussed contexts, the greatest uncertainty was shown about using ChatGPT in education. Pros and cons were raised during discussion for the use of this technology in education, research, and healthcare. Discussion: There was a range of perspectives around the uses of ChatGPT in education, research, and healthcare, with still much uncertainty around its acceptability and optimal uses. There were different perspectives from respondents of different roles (trainee vs faculty vs staff). More discussion is needed to explore perceptions around the use of LLMs such as ChatGPT in vital sectors such as education, healthcare and research. Given involved risks and unforeseen challenges, taking a thoughtful and measured approach in adoption would reduce the likelihood of harm.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have improved in predictive performance, but several challenges remain to be addressed before PRSs can be implemented in the clinic, including reduced predictive performance of PRSs in diverse populations, and the interpretation and communication of genetic results to both providers and patients. To address these challenges, the National Human Genome Research Institute-funded Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network has developed a framework and pipeline for return of a PRS-based genome-informed risk assessment to 25,000 diverse adults and children as part of a clinical study. From an initial list of 23 conditions, ten were selected for implementation based on PRS performance, medical actionability and potential clinical utility, including cardiometabolic diseases and cancer. Standardized metrics were considered in the selection process, with additional consideration given to strength of evidence in African and Hispanic populations. We then developed a pipeline for clinical PRS implementation (score transfer to a clinical laboratory, validation and verification of score performance), and used genetic ancestry to calibrate PRS mean and variance, utilizing genetically diverse data from 13,475 participants of the All of Us Research Program cohort to train and test model parameters. Finally, we created a framework for regulatory compliance and developed a PRS clinical report for return to providers and for inclusion in an additional genome-informed risk assessment. The initial experience from eMERGE can inform the approach needed to implement PRS-based testing in diverse clinical settings.

Background Large language models such as ChatGPT can produce increasingly realistic text, with unknown information on the accuracy and integrity of using these models in scientific writing. Methods We gathered ten research abstracts from five high impact factor medical journals (n=50) and asked ChatGPT to generate research abstracts based on their titles and journals. We evaluated the abstracts using an artificial intelligence (AI) output detector, plagiarism detector, and had blinded human reviewers try to distinguish whether abstracts were original or generated. Results All ChatGPT-generated abstracts were written clearly but only 8% correctly followed the specific journal’s formatting requirements. Most generated abstracts were detected using the AI output detector, with scores (higher meaning more likely to be generated) of median [interquartile range] of 99.98% [12.73, 99.98] compared with very low probability of AI-generated output in the original abstracts of 0.02% [0.02, 0.09]. The AUROC of the AI output detector was 0.94. Generated abstracts scored very high on originality using the plagiarism detector (100% [100, 100] originality). Generated abstracts had a similar patient cohort size as original abstracts, though the exact numbers were fabricated. When given a mixture of original and general abstracts, blinded human reviewers correctly identified 68% of generated abstracts as being generated by ChatGPT, but incorrectly identified 14% of original abstracts as being generated. Reviewers indicated that it was surprisingly difficult to differentiate between the two, but that the generated abstracts were vaguer and had a formulaic feel to the writing. Conclusion ChatGPT writes believable scientific abstracts, though with completely generated data. These are original without any plagiarism detected but are often identifiable using an AI output detector and skeptical human reviewers. Abstract evaluation for journals and medical conferences must adapt policy and practice to maintain rigorous scientific standards; we suggest inclusion of AI output detectors in the editorial process and clear disclosure if these technologies are used. The boundaries of ethical and acceptable use of large language models to help scientific writing remain to be determined.