Evaluating a Large Language Model’s Ability to Answer Clinicians’ Requests for Evidence Summaries

Objective This study investigated the performance of a generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool using GPT-4 in answering clinical questions in comparison with medical librarians’ gold-standard evidence syntheses. Methods Questions were extracted from an in-house database of clinical evidence requests previously answered by medical librarians. Questions with multiple parts were subdivided into individual topics. A standardized prompt was developed using the COSTAR framework. Librarians submitted each question into aiChat, an internally-managed chat tool using GPT-4, and recorded the responses. The summaries generated by aiChat were evaluated on whether they contained the critical elements used in the established gold-standard summary of the librarian. A subset of questions was randomly selected for verification of references provided by aiChat. Results Of the 216 evaluated questions, aiChat’s response was assessed as “correct” for 180 (83.3%) questions, “partially correct” for 35 (16.2%) questions, and “incorrect” for 1 (0.5%) question. No significant differences were observed in question ratings by question category (p=0.39). For a subset of 30% (n=66) of questions, 162 references were provided in the aiChat summaries, and 60 (37%) were confirmed as nonfabricated. Conclusions Overall, the performance of a generative AI tool was promising. However, many included references could not be independently verified, and attempts were not made to assess whether any additional concepts introduced by aiChat were factually accurate. Thus, we envision this being the first of a series of investigations designed to further our understanding of how current and future versions of generative AI can be used and integrated into medical librarians’ workflow. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement Support for the REDCap database, used in this study for data entry and data collection, was provided by CTSA award UL1TR000445 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The Vanderbilt University Medical Center Institutional Review Board determined that this study does not qualify as "human subjects" research per Code of Federal Regulations 46.102(e)(1). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes