ChatGPT has promising applications in health care, but potential ethical issues need to be addressed proactively to prevent harm. ChatGPT presents potential ethical challenges from legal, humanistic, algorithmic, and informational perspectives. Legal ethics concerns arise from the unclear allocation of responsibility when patient harm occurs and from potential breaches of patient privacy due to data collection. Clear rules and legal boundaries are needed to properly allocate liability and protect users. Humanistic ethics concerns arise from the potential disruption of the physician-patient relationship, humanistic care, and issues of integrity. Overreliance on artificial intelligence (AI) can undermine compassion and erode trust. Transparency and disclosure of AI-generated content are critical to maintaining integrity. Algorithmic ethics raise concerns about algorithmic bias, responsibility, transparency and explainability, as well as validation and evaluation. Information ethics include data bias, validity, and effectiveness. Biased training data can lead to biased output, and overreliance on ChatGPT can reduce patient adherence and encourage self-diagnosis. Ensuring the accuracy, reliability, and validity of ChatGPT-generated content requires rigorous validation and ongoing updates based on clinical practice. To navigate the evolving ethical landscape of AI, AI in health care must adhere to the strictest ethical standards. Through comprehensive ethical guidelines, health care professionals can ensure the responsible use of ChatGPT, promote accurate and reliable information exchange, protect patient privacy, and empower patients to make informed decisions about their health care.

ChatGPT is receiving increasing attention and has a variety of application scenarios in clinical practice. In clinical decision support, ChatGPT has been used to generate accurate differential diagnosis lists, support clinical decision-making, optimize clinical decision support, and provide insights for cancer screening decisions. In addition, ChatGPT has been used for intelligent question-answering to provide reliable information about diseases and medical queries. In terms of medical documentation, ChatGPT has proven effective in generating patient clinical letters, radiology reports, medical notes, and discharge summaries, improving efficiency and accuracy for health care providers. Future research directions include real-time monitoring and predictive analytics, precision medicine and personalized treatment, the role of ChatGPT in telemedicine and remote health care, and integration with existing health care systems. Overall, ChatGPT is a valuable tool that complements the expertise of health care providers and improves clinical decision-making and patient care. However, ChatGPT is a double-edged sword. We need to carefully consider and study the benefits and potential dangers of ChatGPT. In this viewpoint, we discuss recent advances in ChatGPT research in clinical practice and suggest possible risks and challenges of using ChatGPT in clinical practice. It will help guide and support future artificial intelligence research similar to ChatGPT in health.

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a common disease and a major public health problem. HF mortality prediction is critical for developing individualized prevention and treatment plans. However, due to their lack of interpretability, most HF mortality prediction models have not yet reached clinical practice. Objective: We aimed to develop an interpretable model to predict the mortality risk for patients with HF in intensive care units (ICUs) and used the SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) method to explain the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model and explore prognostic factors for HF. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we achieved model development and performance comparison on the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD). We extracted data during the first 24 hours of each ICU admission, and the data set was randomly divided, with 70% used for model training and 30% used for model validation. The prediction performance of the XGBoost model was compared with three other machine learning models by the area under the curve. We used the SHAP method to explain the XGBoost model. Results: A total of 2798 eligible patients with HF were included in the final cohort for this study. The observed in-hospital mortality of patients with HF was 9.97%. Comparatively, the XGBoost model had the highest predictive performance among four models with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.824 (95% CI 0.7766-0.8708), whereas support vector machine had the poorest generalization ability (AUC=0.701, 95% CI 0.6433-0.7582). The decision curve showed that the net benefit of the XGBoost model surpassed those of other machine learning models at 10%~28% threshold probabilities. The SHAP method reveals the top 20 predictors of HF according to the importance ranking, and the average of the blood urea nitrogen was recognized as the most important predictor variable. Conclusions: The interpretable predictive model helps physicians more accurately predict the mortality risk in ICU patients with HF, and therefore, provides better treatment plans and optimal resource allocation for their patients. In addition, the interpretable framework can increase the transparency of the model and facilitate understanding the reliability of the predictive model for the physicians.

Purpose: The goal of this study is to construct a mortality prediction model using the XGBoot (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) decision tree model for AKI (acute kidney injury) patients in the ICU (intensive care unit), and to compare its performance with that of three other machine learning models. Methods: We used the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) for model development and performance comparison. The prediction performance of the XGBoot model was compared with the other three machine learning models. These models included LR (logistic regression), SVM (support vector machines), and RF (random forest). In the model comparison, the AUROC (area under receiver operating curve), accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score were used to evaluate the predictive performance of each model. Results: A total of 7548 AKI patients were analyzed in this study. The overall in-hospital mortality of AKI patients was 16.35%. The best performing algorithm in this study was XGBoost with the highest AUROC (0.796, p < 0.01), F1(0.922, p < 0.01) and accuracy (0.860). The precision (0.860) and recall (0.994) of the XGBoost model rank second among the four models. Conclusion: XGBoot model had obvious advantages of performance compared to the other machine learning models. This will be helpful for risk identification and early intervention for AKI patients at risk of death.